H§GH SGUR? OF SHHATY§SGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petmon (S) No. 343 of 2088 Petitiongg 1} Mukund Ram. aged 59 years, son cf Shri Bimui Rawatiya, working as Gangman; Pubiic Works Department (3&2), Sub Division Kunkuri, D§st Jashpur CG) appointed on 1 4—1 979. ( 2) Laxman Ram, aged abaut 50 yeara son of Shri Ganesh Kumar, working as Gangman, Pubiic Works Department (B&R) Sub—Division — Kunkuri, Distiq Jashpur (CG). Appointed on 1~4~ 1979 3) Ramouiar, aged about 52 years, Sloi Shri Dhiram Ram; weiking as Garigmanz Public Works Department (8&R) Sub Division Kunkuri, Disti. Jashpur (CG‘, (appointed on “L44 Q79) 4) Lakhan Ram, aged aooui 59 years, son of Shri Kasiu Ram, working as Gangman Public Works Department (B& R): Sub Division — Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (appointed in the year 1-4— 1978) o) Bandhan Rampuri, aged about 59 vearsm son of Shri Bhoklo Rawatiya working as Gangman, Pubiic Works Department (88R) Sub Division Kunkuri, Dist. Jasnpur (CG) appointed on i-4—?9. 6) Sannu Ram aged about 62‘ years, son of Late Lohara Ram Uraon‘ retired as Gangman, Public Works Department (88R) Seb Division —~ Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). (appointed on 1—4- 79) Versus 1) State of Chhattisgar’n, through the Secretary, Department of Public Works, Dau Katyan Singn Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Chief Executive Engineer, Department of Public Works, Division Jashpur, Distt, Jasnpur (CG). 3) Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Sub Division — Kunkuri, Distt. Jasnpur (CG). Respondents . (Writ Petition under Articie 226 oi the Constitution of lndia) SD: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vinod Tekam, counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Binu Shanna, Panei Lawyer fortne State./ ”1r. ,4 'l/ GF‘AL <23RDER gassed on 41‘“ Fgbmayy, 299a) Learned counsel appearing far the petitioners submits that the pet'rtioners, who were appointed on ie4-i979 as permanent Gangman in the Public Works Department, Jashpur and have worked for more than 25 years as Gangman, seek a relief that the petitioners being permanent Gangman be retired at the age 9f 62 years in accordance with the Chhatiisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki~Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short ‘the Act, 1967‘} read with Fundamental Rule 56. ‘2) According to learned counsei for the petitioners) the petitioners attained the status of permanent empioyees, as defined under Ruie 2(c) of the Ch‘nattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Empioyees) Pension Rutes, 1979, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of tndia. After having attained the status of the ‘ permanent employees, the petitioners would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, t967. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners eubrntts that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 108 of 2005 (Gavind and others Vs. State of Chhattisgam and others) and other oonnected matters i 2007 (2) CGLJ — 29)‘ 4) Learned counsei appearing tor the Staterrespondents does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. K 5) Accordingly the petitioners, who are permanent Gangmen, are entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the provisions of the Act! . 'i Q6? The petition is accordingiy aiiowed, subject to verihcation of facts of the case. No order asto costs. \ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri s ,7 Judge Raju "