.1,<L lf.Il i^s IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. ^ T^€ /2005 ^Santuram, S/o Shri Bansilal, Aged about 49 years, R/o Village Ghota, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through-the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer /" 1. €€ 'o"" ^' rl. Public Works Department, R.B, Road, District Bhanupratapur (C,G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 •3^-^iiAjH^, •^Nn^, 1^n?i1sT W^^tTWW^ 4 O ^.^..-.SA^ 3:?7^T^T 'R^TaT^T . ^RW^fl"^ -sn^i ^^T^R^n 5-12-2005 Shri x4dioop Majymdar, Counsel Shii Sandeep Dubey, Go^/t. Adv Heard.' Counsel fot' the petitioner farther subiiuts that m batch of case^ Dadsena and othei-s -v- State of Chh. on 15th September 2005. Tliis fact m not m a position to Shri Majumdar submits that th| he has riot ^ven the relief as there is.j beenfiled. . ' In the order dated 15-9-2005 p^ the Comt: has held as under:- •i3................Puri30rt of the appears from the perusal of th| peritioners that the gang men on 30-03-2005, they wffl bs al|i yecirs. It is informed by the the gang men, ^lio have ah'eac| have been paid retiral benefitsj petitioners, who have retired b| senAce, though they have still not given benefit of order datedj 4. For the reasons stated 4 the gang men, who had re&edj '^Tqf<n41yi HR^fTf 'fezl' TJ^R^R ^ 'srj^Tf ^n^r -1- jfor the petitioner. for the State. . subitiits that the matter relates to gang man. He 1 mcluding W.P. No. 1722/2003 (Mohanlal :|ttisgarh and others), orders have been passed d|spute tlus fact. petitioner approached to the authorities but ]no comt order. Accordmgly this petition has ijssed m W.P: No. 1722/2003 in batoh ofcases, iorder is quite clear and unabmibuous as it order as well as from the contentions of the ^ho have not completed the age of 60 years as al|owed to contmue till they attain the age of 60 leaijtied counsel for the petitioners(s) that some of y retired on completion of 30 years of service, |i.e. gratuity only. This will be unfair, if the ^fore 30-03-2005 on completion of 30 years of some years to go before 60 years of age, are 130-03-2005. / |bove, the respondents are directed to allow a]l cn completion of 30 years of sendce but have [Tft^ ^fe^'? ~T~ XI-HC-22 W^T-^T fN^^i¥r 5t^^ic^ <"i?^a •^^- T ^ ^ '60 ^<s y fa -s-^ -^iFTi^ra. ^^i^. •f^my 41 '^t^r'^^ _..^.^.r....€^.iA:r Tr^^"'4-7-'-"-"-""---^ 200 3T?^T'^TIWHfN not attained th^ age of 60 years attain tiie age of 60 years, subj givento them.. (5). In some of the petitions, oftheii' sendces as Gang man. L the said prayer b©disi-nissed as granted to the petitionei's to appropdat^ forum.. jf necessaty. regularization are dmtiissed as raise the dispute 'seeking redress| before the appropriate fomm. (6) - In ^iew of the foregom| . mdicate-d above. The responde^ order witliin a period of t^vo m<| oftliis order. No order as to cost This petition also stands alloweel order passed in W.P. 1755/2003. The r^ the orders within a period ofh¥0mont|i ofthis order. M.W.P. No. 4555/2005 stands ! c^{^f<ri<i1-r ^i^^if ^ fe^ Tf^y^R '^sTj^R^n^r to rejoin the sendces and continue ^tiB they j^ct to depositing the retii'al benefite, if any, the petitioners liave prayed for regutarization ^amed counsel for the petitioners subimt that n^>t pressed at present. Howevei\the Uberfy be ^ise the issue of regularizadon before the The petitioiis with regard to the prayer 6f lot pressed vvith liberi5r to the petitioners ta ^l of the relief of regularizatioii, if necessa% t,. the petitiom stand aUowed to the ©xtent ^.ts are farther cfaected to comply with tliis ^nths from the date of receipt/cominunication to the extent mdicated above to the extent of spondents are farther directed to comply with s fromthe date of ooiiimumcatioivproduction isposed of C.c. as per rules. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ["Ift^^fe^