HI6H COURT OP CHHATTIS6< H AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2702 of 2007 Pctitioner yersus ftespondents Asharam Sahu Son of Mansoram Sdiu, aged obout 60 years, Resident of Vill<ge Biretara, Post Doma, bistrict bhamtwi (C.©.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through; The Secretary, Water Resources Department, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. The Executive Engineer, Water Management Division Rudri, Tdisil and District Dhamta-i (C.6.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Midwnadi Water Mwxgefflent Sub Divisjon No. 1 Ruciri, Tchsil And Djstr'ict Mxnntari (C.&) Writ petitfon under ^rficte 226 of the Constilution of Indja Smg^e Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sotish K. ^iihotrt. Present: Mr. PJ}. Schu, Advoca+e for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Oubey, Ponel Lowyer for State/respondents. OR&ER (Passed on 4rt Day of Mny, 2007) »- 1. Learned counsel oppeoring for the petitioner submits Ihat the petitioner, who i»as employed as permanent 6(ngman on 1.5.1981 ee (Aour in the establishment of respondents No. 2 and 3, seeks a relief that the petitioner beirg permanent gwgmon be r-etired at the age of 62 yeors in accordance with tiie Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevd< (Adhiv<rshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for shm-t 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule (for short 'F.R.') 56. 2. According to learned (aunsel for the petitioner, Ihe petitioner aftained the status of permaient employee, ce defined under Rule 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged wd Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules, 1979'), framed under Article 309 of the Subhash Constitution of India Aftw having attained the status of the permanent employee the petitioner woukl retire on attainting the oge of 62 years w\ supermnuation under tiie pr'ovisions of the Act, 1967. 3. Learned counsel oppetring for the petitioner woukl submit thtrt the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4 JaroMry, 2007 in WP. No. 454/»X)5(Rom Prusad Yadw and oKia-s Vs. State of ChhatHsgorh & others) and other connected mafters. 4. Learned counsel oppeeu'ing for the respondents/State does not dispute the Stfcmissjons made by learned counsel for> the petitioner. 5. The respondents are at tiberty to consider tfie facts of the case asto whether the petitioner hos completed 15 yea's of service as gangman. In the event, it is found thtrt- the petitioner has eompleted 15 yecrs of service, the case shatl be govemed t^ 'the decision of this Court in the matter of Ran Prasad yodov wid others Vs. State of Orfiattisga+i &others (supro). 6. Accordingty, tiie petitioner, who is permcnent gangmon, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 ye<rs in accordance «Hhthe Act, 1967. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order os to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge