^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPCR WRITPETITION(S)No. 3647 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ Bisahu Ram Gond &^> Dukalu, age 59 years ^ - Permanent Gaagman WRD—'Woriteing under •^S.D.O. WRD - Sub Division, Lemu Distt —..•BilMpur(C.G.)- ;..- .- .^ •,,: •^-:": VERSUS : \.. ; ,- -'..-. : 'l)" -State of Chhattisgarh, ThroygU Secretary, . Water Resources Deptt, Matralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan-Raipyr (C.G.) , '^ 2) SubDivisionalOfficer,WRD-iSubDivisiQn Lonni Disft - Bilaspur (C.G.) ' WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTU'IKMOFJNDIA, Single Bench : Hon'Me Justtce Shri Sattsh K. AenUiotri. Present: Shri Ashok Vaishnav withShri Sameer Sahu, Advocate forthe petitioner. ' ' . Sbri Sumesh Bajaj, <jovt. Advocate for the State/respoBdents. , ORDER >Si (Passed on 28m day of June, 200'T) By ttus petition, the petitioner, who has worked as Gangman (permanent), seeks a relief fhat the petitioneT..6emg.permanent,gangpianb&retired at fhe age of62 yeara m accbrdancewith^ efiE^ Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)^Adhimyam, 1967 (SM- short:'fhe Act, 1967') read wifh Rmdamaital Rjufe,(fbr shcirf?F;R.') 56 .,.:-,;: AccordfflgtoleameAcQUHselforfhepetifioner,thepetitiOnerattame^ status of peTmarieHt;empl6yee, as defined imder Rule 2(e) of tUe Chhattisgarh (Workeharged and Contmgejiey Paid Emptoyees) Pension Rules, 1979 (fbr short 'the Rules, 1979), fi-amga-underArticle 309 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Afterliaving attained^lfie status^-^ '\. @) employee, the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of62 yeara on superannuation under the provisions oftheAct, 1967. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would subinit that the case of tfae petitioner issquarely eovered by the decision ofttus Court passed on ith 4m January-, 2007 in W.P. No. (Govind Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other coimected matters. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/'Sfate does not dispute the submission made by leamed counsel for tKe petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is pennanent gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in aceordance wifh the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly ^llowed, subject to venfieation of the facts. No orderasto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge