1 / 'm9‘e gem“ CNN“? 1 Dlal Sahu S/o Sonu Ram Sau, Aged about 46 . years, R/o Village Budera, P.O. Kharora, Post Office, Kharora, Dist : Raipur (C.G.). Versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Respondents " Through Secretary Department of Pblic Works Department, D.K‘S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Sub Divisional Officer (T&) Sub Division PWD (B&R) Balo Bazar, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.) The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division 2, Baloda Bazar, Dist : Raipur (C.G.). WRIT U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTERIORAI ETC OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER S § IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 33 /2005 Petitioner / au h u M da XI—HC-22 18.3.2005 Shr-i Ashok Pa‘ril, counsel fur- The pefi‘rioner. ' Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for fhe Sfu‘re/respandenfs. I.A.No.1801/2005 for urge nT hearing is a!!owed. Heard. Chcdlenging fine superanmafion of ’rhe pe?i1’ioner an 3.5.2003 (Annexure P—1), fhe pe‘rifioner has filed This pafl'l'ion for- allowing him in service Till 'l'he age of 60 years and alsv for paymem‘ of arrears efc. Learned counsel for The pe’ri‘l’ioner submifs i’hnf ‘lhe pefi‘fioner has been retired wi‘rh effecf from 3.5.2003 on The ground The? he has complefee ”the services of 3Q years. He submifs ”rho? "rhe pe‘rifioner has no? completed The age of 6‘) years, Therefore, The reTiremenT on The basis of 3O years of service is noT in accordance wiTh law. Learned counsel for The peTiTioner draws aTTenTion of This CourT Towards The various inTerim orders, passed in This regard in which The noTice/order of reTiremenT on T e basis of compleTion of 3O years of service, wiThouT compleTing The . ge of 60 years, have been sTayed and The peTiTioners of Those peTiTion are sTill conTinuing in service. Learned counsei for The peTiTioner prays ThaT if The similar TreaTmenT is given To This peTi oner also, he should be reinsTaTed in service on The basis of. oreviow orders passed by This CourT in many XI—HC—22 HW,W,W Wm decide fhe some on fhe basis of F pe’fh‘ions and fake The pefifimer E superannuwfion; This Hmi'red prayer is no‘r op Consequently, fhe prayer is advised, The pe‘ri‘rioner may f compefem au‘i'hor'i‘ry wi‘rhin 15 day 'ihis order and copy of wr‘if pefifi fhis Cour? in ofher wrif pefifions wri? pefifions. According To fhe dufe 0f bir‘fh of The pefi'rioner i service book of The pah‘i‘ioner. iearned counsel for “the pefifioner On The above background, submifs fhaf presenfly, fhis pefifion may be disposed of wi‘rh a liberfy fa fhe pefi'l'ioner fo file a de failed represenfafion before ‘rhe compefenf aufhorify and fhe compefenf aufhorify ‘may be direcfed fo revious orders passed in ofher wri‘r jack in job fiii he affains fhe age of iearnad counsel for fhe pe’rifionar, s 3.7.58 which is aiso recorded in nosed by fhe Sfafe courisei. i allowed. IT is direcfed fhaf if so ile a represenfafion before fhe s from today along wifh fhe copy of on along wi‘rh few orders passed by on The basis of which fhe persons, not completing fhe age of 60 yearsy have been refained job and if such a repre’senfafion is filed, fhe com 3e1'enf aufhori’ry shall dispose of “the same in accordance wifh law as early as possible, preferably wifhin a period of one monfh from fhe do‘l'e of receipf of The represenfafion.‘ m XI—HC-22 ‘ and shcdi consider a” The grounds‘ ? :r'vm'ions, fhe pafh’ion s‘mnds finaHy /T Sdl- ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ Judge