HI6H CWKT OF WHATTlSGffiH AT BILAS'UR Writ Petition (S) hto. 2879 of 2007 1. Mani Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Chamaru Sahu, aged about 60 yews, R/o. Villoge & Post Ahilda, Tehsil Batoda Bozor, bistrict Raipur (C.6.) 2. Bobu Rom Patel, S/o. Shri Nain Das Patel, aged about 60 years, R/o. Village & Post Munda, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, Oistrict Roipur (C.6.) 3. Pur-udiottom Vermo, S/o. Dheer Das, R/o. Villtge & Post Ahilda, Tehsil Baloda Bazcr, District Raipur (C.©.) Versus 1. Storte of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Water Resources bepartment, &.K.S. Bhwan. Mantroloyo, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Water Mana9ement Division No. 2, Baloda Bazor, District Raipur (C.©.) 3. Sub Oivisional Officer. Water Management, Sub Oivision No. 6, Tehsil Baloda Bozar, District Raipur {€.©.) Co»istfhitionof India Sine/te Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justics Satish K. Agnihotri. Present; Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Dubsy, Ponel Lawiyer for State/respondents. OR 0 ER 0'assed on 10th bay of Mny. 2007) 1. Learned counsel appaaring for the petitioners submits thot the petitioners, who were employed os permanerrt &angmm on 11.07.1978 in the Water Reawrces Department ond the petitioners, swho hwe worked for more than 30 years as ©angman,seeks o relief that -ttie petitioner being pennanerrt gongman be retired at the age of 62 years in occordance wi't+i the Chhattisgar'h Shcskiya Sevok (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam. 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Ruie (for short 'F.R.') 56. 2. According to iearned counsel for the petitioners. the petitioners attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workdiorged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules. 1979'), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. After* having attained the status of the permanent employee The petitioner would retire on attQinting the age of 62 yecrs on superannufftion under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3. Learned counsel appscring for the petitioners woutd submit that the ease of the petitioners are squorely covered by the decision of this Court p<ssed on 4th January, 2007 in W.P. No. 454/2005 (Ram Prasad Yadav and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other- comected mcrtters. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the submissions made by learned counse! for the petitioner. 5. The respondents are at liberty to consider the facts of the csse asto whether the petitioners have completed 15 years of service as 9or^mai. In the event, it js found tiicrt the petitioner-s have compieted 15 years of service, th®case shall be governed by the decision of this Court in The matter of Rcm Prcsad Yadav and others Vs. State of Chhattisgorh & others (supra). c" 6. Accordingly, the petitioners, who are permanent gar^mon, (ye entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the Act, 1967. 7. The petition is accordin9ly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhash