IC-78 ^5S( <-qi«10«,u>Tl1<<-l<l<», Rrtl<<1^ »^^.f^. :.^23.. ^IHrtl ^HTq? 3TT^9T q^P (L|c|i^c|<£;) ^t 200^ OT^^TcITTf^TTc^ ^TT3Ti^5TfCTt<^ ?^TSR;FrftcT3TT^$T PETmONER S/o 20 Kankej RESPONDBNTS 1. State G^ cp»^fo<nTi^i^c^^'f^St <<Fji^i'< ^ srf^H gff^ST Naray^n Ghose, Age about 61 year, Rajmistri L4te Shri Kushal Ghose, R/o Village PV B^ikunthpur, Block Pakhanjur, Distt. Versus ovt. of Chhattisgarh, Througti ttie Secretaiy, Department of PubUc Woks, IDKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Chief Public lExecutive Engineer, Department of tVorks, Division Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG) | 3. Execu4ve Engmeer, Department of Public Works, 4. Sub D| Works, I Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker. Ivisional Officer, Department of Public Paldianjur, Distt. Kanker (CG) Writ Petition under Arti<lle 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia S.B Hon»bleShrl Dhirett^ 24.11.2008 Mr. Somkant Verma, Mrs. Smita Ghai, PL With the consent o: parties, the matter is heard ra Mishra. J lcounsel for the petitioner. fbr fhe State. i^ leamed counsel appearmg for fhe fmaUy. The petitioner is w<|)rking m Public Works Department. Leamed counsel appearin^ for the petitioner as weU as leamed counsel appearing tor the 'respoiideiily/Statc jomtly submitjiat^ IIC-78 *il*loi ^TT^ ^wT ^<4i«irt<4,y-xTl^^l^, Rlrtl^^ k/ ^c^^ ^o , g ^ ^ 3TI^?T q?q> (^c|I^6|^) ^200^ 3n^9T<RTf^Ttc|7 ?T3H3T1^9TgRtc() ?^TT^ ^rf^T 3TT^^T ^- the question of law, involve<| same as to that of in Govin<| ^2007 (2) CGLJ 29), whe^ gangmen are entitled to be| years, in accordance wifh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshife( Leamed counsel ap] further submits that if the footings, fhere is no reason the permanent gangmen. Accordingly, this writj order passed ia fhe case of| verification of the fact as tc| the status of pennanent in the present writ petition, is fhe & others Vs. State of CO & others lein it is held that the permanent retired on attaining fhe age of 62 |the provisions of fhe Chhattisgarh ^i-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967. cpt^fc'»J1x1^I^C^T^'fe^t^Rrl^I^ ^ 3Tf^T 3H^$T icaring for the respondents/State ;ase of the petitioner is on the sanie to deny him the benefits avaUable to petition is allowed in teroas of ftie |Govind & others (supra), subject to whether fhe petitioner has acquired ggmlgman. No order as to costs. ^^ SAI' O^W^w'