^rSi^^^Z-?>®»n»flB«*iT[|n-7l^^ sai.itu!ii^is,; ^}^^ <0^^-€^^ ..-•••"3^v'1^-"' ^.^•::^<w*".....--"" ^ ^ ^^ ^ ,eff; ,•**' ?'i ^iN.TFtE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_BILASPUR <el WRIT PETITION (S)NO. ...5'>.cl..'7.../2007 ^ PETITIONERS: J-}" Roopgir S/o Tilakgir age 54 years 2]. Rajo D/o Pardeshi age 48 years 3J Degreelal S/o Daru age 56 years Both working as Gangmen PWD Under, S.D.0. PWD, Saraipali C/o Sub- Divisional Officer, PWD, Saraipali, Distt- Mahasamund [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS: .-'•:•? 1J/- State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works Deptt. Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan-Raipur (C.G.) ,.2] Sub- Divisional Officer, PWD, Saraipali ' ' r*,-/^ . Distt- Mahasamund [C.G.] ^y^ <^.% WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22'6 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^o OFINDIA KE61-1 COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR V/rit Petition (5) No. 864 of 2007 Petitioners Roopgir end others Verais Respondents "State of Oihattisgarh A another SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Mr. 5ameer Sohu, AdyocaTe for ihe petitloners. Ms. De^ali Pandey. Pone! iawyer for the respondents/State. -< 1. ORDER (Passec! on -1+iis 13th doy of February, 20Q7) 8y this petition, the petitioners. w^io have worked for more than 30 years as Sangmcm seek a reiief that the petitiona-s, being permanent gangman. be retired ot tiie age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki- Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 ( for ihort 'the Act, 1967') r'ead with Fundamental Ru!e (for short 'F.R.') 56, 2. The indisputabte facts are that ttie petitioner No. 1 and 2 were appointed as gangmai in the year 1969 and •the petitioner No. 3 was appointed as gangman in -t+ie year 1971 in the Pubtic V/orks Department. According to leamed counsel for the petitionars, they attained the status of permanen* employee, as defined under Ruie 2(c) of the Cnhatt-isgarh CWorkcharged and Contingency Paid :mpioyees) Pension Rules, 1979 ( for Aort the Rules, 1979'), fromed under Artlcle 309 of the Constitution of India. After B 2 India. After having attained the stalus of the permiment employee, the petstioners would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superonnuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3. Mr, Sameer Sahu, Seamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit tiiat the case of the petitioneM is squareiy covered by tiie decision of -this Court pa,ssed on 4th Jonuary, 2007 in W.P. No. 108/2005 (Sovind Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) ond other connected matt'ers, wherei'n this Court held that the permcsnent gangman are. entltSed to retire on att'aining the age of 62 years. 4. Leamed counse! dppearing for both 1+ie parties jointly submit that the isaje involved hereinabove and the facts are identical to that of in W.P. No. 108/2005 (supra). 5, Accordingly, the petitioners, who are permonent gangmem, are entitled to retire on attaining the ageof 62 years in accordan<« with the Act. 1967. The petition is accordingly al!owed.No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Bablu