^— r :-%i ..•^Mlf^^. ••f^Wt^^W w &L;....:.- .: ^ ^^•^^rl-t^' ^Ijj^^L^ '•^^^I^Cl p.B.No....."-;-;" presentedbf^^ dateis.-ca-B IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. ^ 733 /2QQ5 PETITIONER : ^ Jairam/S/oShriDukhu, Aged about 49 years/ R/o Village Ghota, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (CG.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through-the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer RESPONDENTS 1. -2. Public Works Department, R.B. Road, District - Bhanupratapur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA x XI-HC-22 ^1^1-^T f^ti^ 3T^¥l -^Hi^^?f \ .(•••• + -T^^TqMq. ^WI^. f^R^ •4-i •3cr ^?I11?Tjl ^^Tl^._^^..sll3./0^ "^I 2 "fN^^" 3??^T'^^T^^?[ 5-12-2005 Shri ^oop Majumctor, Counsel Slm Sandeep Dubey, Govl. Adv. Heard, Counsel for ths petitioner subiii|ts farther submits tfaat in batch of cases,1 Dadsena and others -v~ State of Clihattls^ onl5&September2005. This fact is not ma position to dis|)ute Shri Majunidar sul5iiuts that thej he has irot given the re-lief as there is beentlled. . f}>r the petitioner. ifor the State. that tlw matter relates to gang man. He mcluding W.P. No. 1722/2003 (Mohanlal ^arh and others), orders have been passed tliis fact. petirioner approached to the authorities but court order. Accordm^ tliis petition has 4o In the orde.r dated 15-9-2005 pas; ^' the Court has held as under:- "3..........:.,...Puiport of the. appears from the pemsal of the petitioners that the gang men w^o on 30-03-2005, they will be aflo^ years. It is infon-ned by the leamt the gang men, who have alreadyj have been paid retiral benefits i| petitioners, who have retired befj^re servj.ee, though they have still s^me not given b€nej5toforder dated ^O- 4. For the reasons stated abjo^7e, the gang men, who had re&ed (^i ^TOT^frT ^TTR^lf ^ 'fe^t 'rf^f^R ^'3TJ:W?^??^T ,ed in W.P. No. 1722/2G03 in batch ofcases, drder [rder is quite clear and unabimbuous as it brder as weU as from the contentions of the have not completed the age of 60 years as ^ved to contmue tifl tliev attam the age of 60 ^d counsel.for the petitiGner8(s) that some of Iretired on completion of 30 years of service, ^. gi'atuity onh'. This wffl be unfciir; if the 30-03-2005 on completion of30 years of »me years to go before 60 years of age, are 0-03-2005. o^7e. the respondents are dii'ected to allow aU completion of 30 years of service but have [Tit^^fe^ + XI-HC-22 5?rr^?'^T ^t^^TI^ ^•"RNT^ft^ -<'. ^: / lv/^7 ^' ^r ^ ^-^ ^PTT^q. ^t?iTTS, 'f^5R^< _.^.^...s..Z..32/^ N8N^ri ^W^ ' .^^200 3i?^?l i-CTW^i^T (6) not attained tiie age of 60 year| attain the age of 60 years, givento them. (5) In some ofthe petitions.i of their sen'ices as Gang man. tlw saidprayer be dismissed as gi'anted to the petitioners to appropriate foi<um, if necessanj Tegularization are dismissed as ^raise the disptrte,seekmg redres^ befbre ^ie ap^fopriate fe^ni. In \dew of the foregomg, the 'j above/The re-spondents are furj a period of Uvo months from ti| No order as to coste." This p^ition also stancls allowe^ brdef.p3ssedmW.P.IJ55/2003. The i| the.order.s witliin a period oft^7o of this order. M.W.P. No. 4541/2005 standsj C,c. as per mles. ^N^F^T ^m^tf 4 'fe^r ^N^R '^^f^R*3^? |, to rejoin the sendces and continue tifl they subjject to deposimig the refeal benefits, if any, the petitioners have pra^7ed for regularization Ij.eamed counsel for the petitioners sBbmit that ^ot pressed at present. Howewr, the liberU^ be. ^aise tlie issue of regularization before the The petitions with regard to the prayer of jnot pressed with libex^ to the petitioners to }al of the refief of regularization, if necessanr, ktitions stand allowed to .the exteiit indicated |her dtected to comply with this order withiii date of receipt/cosmnumcation of this order. to the extent mdioated above to the extent of ^spondents are failher directed to comply with mon^is from tlie 'date of CGiTUTiumcationy^roduction disposed of .^ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [Tit^ ^Ra^