^ (L. Si^ftN ^it^^ •^l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR r?€^ PETITIONERS: < ^^ ^y .*• ^.> yf)^^x'' ^€^ <y RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. ...^'..I-:..'-;.P.../2004 1] Roopgir, S/o. Shri Tilakgir, Age 52 years, Ex-Gangman, PWD Basna Section, Saraipali Divisioa, District Mahasamund (Old Raipur), R/o. Village Arekel, P.0. Basna, Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.), Ku. Rajo, D/o. Late Shri Pardesi; Age 46 yrs, Ex-Ganginan, PWD Basna Section, Saraipali Division, District Mahasamund (Old Raipur), R/o. VUlage Paraskol, P.0. BarauU, Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Public Works Deptt, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan-Raipur (C.G.) 2] Sub-Divisional OfGcer, P.W.D., Saraipali Division, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA HIOH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATnSOARH: BLASRJR Sinale Banch : Satish^K A(»iihotrj.J WRIT PETmON NO.93 of 2006 Bharatram Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION N0.4633 of 2004 Ramchand Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PET1TION N0.2307 of 2004 Ramkumar Tlwarl Vs. State bf Chhattisaarh and others WRIT PEmiON N0.1194 «rf2004 Punai Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PET1T10N N0.933 of 2004 Dheraharam & Others Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETTnON N0.716 oT 2004 Madan Lal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETIT10N N0.144 of 2004 Thanu Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others -f WRIT REnTION N0.1723 OF 2003 Lathkhor Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and othera WRIT PEmiON N0.1722 trf 2003 Mohan Lal Dadsena & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETinON N0.4530 OF 2004 Kartikram Halba Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PEDT10N N0.2713 af 2003 Gangaram & Another Vs. Stata of Chhattisgarh and others WR1T PEDTION N0.1946 of 2003 Preet Lal& Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and othars WRIT PCnTION N0.1080 of 2003 Gokul Ram Verms Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ^ WRIT PETI'nON N0.1836 of 2003 Chhedilal Verma & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETniON N0. 1879 Of 2003 Manglu Ram & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETIT10N N0. 1919 of 2003 Santuram & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRITPETmQNNP.2046of 2003 Kejuram Verma & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION N0.4721 of 2004 Shankarlal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another VWIT PEnTION N0.4722 of 2004 Mohit Ram & Another Vs. Stata of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETmON N0.4723 of 2004 ^7. Ajay Patel Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and Another WRIT PET1TION N0.4731 of 2004 Baldeo Das & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another VW^T F'ETmON N0.1664 of 2003 Smt. Mana Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETIT10N N0.1663 Of 2003 Sukhi Ram & Others Vs. State of Chhattiagarh and others WRIT PET1710N N0. 4780 Of 2004 Bishat Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION N0.4716 Of 2004 Bansi & Othgrs Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETtTION N0.1673 of 2003 Samaru & Others / ^-a Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others VURIT penTioN N0.3532 crf 2003 Dainik Vetanbhogi Mazdoor Sangh, Durg Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PET1TION N0.2543 of 2005 Rohit Satnaml & Others VS. State of Chhattlsgarh and others WRIT PET1T10N N0. 2959 of 2004 Khedia Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETIT10N N0.3280 of 2004 Ram Singh & Another Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETmON N0.1970 Of 2004 Dlleram Patel & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT F'ETITION N0.4200 of 2004 Digree Lal & Others Vs. ^ ^' State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PET1TION N0.3886 of 2004 Roopgir & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PET1TION N0.2688 of 2004 Prabhu Ram S Another Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETmON N0.2683 of 2004 Suklal Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and Another VURIT PET1T10N N0.2682 of 2004 Gopi Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and Another WFUT PETIT10N N0.2681 of 2004 Bala Ram Sahu & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PET1T10N N0.2680 of 2004 Juthel Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarti and Another > ^ ^- WRITPEnTION N0.2678 of 2004 Shrawan Kumar & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PEnTION N0.2667 Of 2004 Puneet Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WFaT PETI'PON N0.2668 Of 2004 Saflk Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PET1710N N0.2472 Of 2004 Sowa Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRITPETTT10N N0.2471 of 2004 Vishnu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WR1T PET1T10N N0.3039 of 2004 Deendayal Barate Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and others VmiTPETITION N0.2041 <rf 2003 f^- 3» si ^i^ -il 9 ;;!^ .':iBi \;11^1^. 111 aai 2 Present Man Singh & Others Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and others WRIT PETI710N N0.2048 <rf 2003 Latet Ram Kewat & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PEmiON N0.2679 of 2003 Kripalu Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 'is -:;i; •a: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Mr. Sunil Ottwani, Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnav, Mr. Anll Slngh Rajput, Mr. R.S. Baghel, Mr. B.R. Ghosh, Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Mrs. Fauzia Mirza, leamed counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, & Mr. P.S. Koshy, leamed Dy. Advocate Generals with Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava & Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyers Tor the State of Chhattlsgarh. a ORDER (F^issed on 15"' September, 2005) The petltloners In thls batch of wrlt petltlons are worktng as permanent Gang Men in the Public Works Department of the State Government. Accordingty, thia batch of writ petitions 13 being dbpoaed of by a common order. (2) The petttioners were employedas permanert gang men with the Public Works Department of the Qovemment. The petitioneral :ia -SK ^ «i a } continue to work as casual permanent gang men ever since, By order dated 02,04.2003 / 24.04.2003, the respondent / State decided to termlnate the servlces of the petttloners / gang men worklng in the Public Works Department either on completing 30 years of service or attaining the nge of 60 yeara, whioh ever waa earlier. Purauant to thia order, the potltloners wore rotlred from thoir servloes on completlon of 30 years of servico. During the pandeney of this petition, the State Govemment by order dated 24.03.2005, decided to retire gang men working in the Public Works Department on attaining the age of 60 years and decided to delete the clause "retiring the gang men on completion of 30 years of service". This order was made effectlve with effect from 30.03.2005. (3) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is ctear that the requlrement of completion of 30 years of ser/ice for the purpose of retlrement has been deleted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. Learned counsel appearing for the State / respondent submits that this order would be offective from 30.03.2005 and as such the gang men who had alreacty retired from 30.03.2005 may not be given benefit of this order. The argument of the laamed counsel Is not tanable and the same is not accepted. Purport of the order is quite clear and unambiguous as it appears from the perusal of the order as well as from the contentions of the petitioners that the gang men who have not completed the age of years as on 30.03.2005, they wtll be allowed to contlnue till they attain the age of 60 years. It is informed by the leamed counsel for the petitibner(s) that some of the gang men, who have already retired on completion of 30 years of sen/ice, have been paid retiral benefits i.e. gratuity only. This will ba urrfair, if the petitioners, who have retired before 30.03.2005 on completion of 30 years of service, though they have still some years to go before 60 years of age, are not oiven benefit of order dated 30.03.2005. a ai '^ ':'-3®' ?S1 \^ i 10 (4) For the reasons stated above, the respondents are dtrected fo allow all the gang men, who had retired on comptetion of 30 years of service but have not attained the age of 60 years, to rejoin the services and continue till they attain the 6ge of 60 years, subject to depositing the retiral benefits, if any, given to them. (5) In some of the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for regularization of their services as Gang-man. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submlt that the said prayer tie dismissed as not pressed at present. Howwer, the liberty be granted to the Qetitioners to raise the issue of regulariza(ion before theappropriate forum, if necessary. The petitions with regard to the prayer of regularization are dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioners to raise the dtepute seeking redressat of the relief of regularization, if necessary, before the appropriate forum. (6) In view of the foregoing, the petitlons stand allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents are further directed to comply with this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/communication of this order. No order as to costs. Parties are entitled for certified oopy ofthis order. Sd/- Satish K. Agnjhotri Judge