c .^' »Ws["sSW'QSff^e®F'BaEaBCt.sasRft.^'aKailsNK S^i:^T:fiti^^y':':''?T;l;:./p^cB''i^ /: n!'R[TI8H®t j ManEafchan, Saa of Srl .Raniesfe Vishwakarma, aged steufc SS years, wofki-ag as a Peraaaent; Sangaaen ( Daily Wagsss Y xeste^s of ... vllZsge.';:'-:I^KhaiFt»iifct'~®.Wst » Btorlng,* TghsU & Bitetfe *- Mahasamti ( e.s ) / V'S R S t S ^? ^^> ..••t\^' *>L.-" y.!^^(^\ ^•^y' ^^^•••' .^'^y 'L.^--"" • <{f.^" '^r t 'l. Sfcafce oE ehhatfelsgrarfa, Ishrough tfee Seerekars., Kater- Resoureses Beparbraent» S,K»S» Bfeawany •Baipar. 2, ehlef gBglBeery - &as Profeefc Ralpary @Istt ; Raipar (©•S 5 tf Exesgfclve-Engineer, Ktedar Proje Dl-vlslsn : Mahasamundy - . Diskt t MahasamHna ( e'G ) 4, ' Sul!a,:Stvlslonal'BBgineer'j' -• Kbdar Projeeife,' Wafes» IResoarees SuB Bivlsl.aQ - IX, Wahasainund Bistt s Mahasannina ( O'S ) 5; State of Madhx'a Pradesh tliro-ugh tlie SecEetary, Wgfcer Sesoueees Departmenty -^allabh Bhawatg' Byapal ( M.P. ) IT PETSTieN-'BSiER j Tie S^«g<i^^227<'0F,rBB;:;aoNSTIffiT3!(M| ©FK,aaga • . BEfaBBaS opa*^®- S>aet::l.Qulars oC.'felie Pekj.tj.&i^R s As mentioned above ln the eause tlfele; 2'« PaFtiealars ef the Respewaggfes s As nientloned above ±n the eaase tltle. •*•( SB'^SSfciSSiSSi*v ^^F;-;l£^-?i.-. ^i :^'?::i;^^''».^^^t^;.^_}i^^,, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSOARH : BtLASPUR Sinale Bench : SaUsh K.Aanlhotri. J.O WRIT PETITION No. 3607 of 2003 Smt Sonmat Bai Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh and othere WRIT PETITION No. 978 of 2004 Paras Ram @ Bhulu Ram Sahu Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and others WRIT PETITION No. 399 of 2006 Budhu Ram Kewat Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and othere WRIT PETITION No. 398 of 2006 Dayaram Sahu Vs. Stale of ChhatUsgarh and ottiere WRIT PETITION No. 400 of 2006 Phool Singh Sahu Vs. Stete of Chhatdsgarh and othws A£ WRIT PETITION No. 4W of 2006 Smt. Dukalhin Bai Shiha Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and othere \,.l..l. ';.j; '^•i-.-^^'^^SMs' ^i'r ^.^|<!i^3^£^^SSi•Y Present WRIT PETITION No. 397 of 2006 Durdeshi Ram Sahu Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and othere WRIT PETITION No. 4076 of 2003 Keju Ram Jaiwwal Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and others WRIT PETITION No. 1144 of 2004 Manrakhan Vs. State of Chhatttsgarh and others Mr.V.K-Pandey & Mr.Sanjay K.Agrawal, leamed counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vivek Sharma, leamed Panet Lawyer for fte Stato of ChhatUsgarh. ORDER ~ (Passed on 22nd September 2006) The petttioners In this bateh of Writ Patltions are worklng as casual labour gangs/Daily WageLabour. The date of reUrement was 55 yeare, as per circulardated 09/03/2000. The respondent/State subaequently by circular dated 16/08/2CX)4 increased th»age of retlrement from 55 yeare to 60 years. This Court in W.P. No. 1914/2004 and other connected matten has considered this dispute as to whether tha casual labour gangs who have retired on attainihg the age of 55 years be glven the benefit of <he cireular dated 16/08/2004 for the purpose of reUrement on attaining the age <rf 60 yeare. Leamed counsel for the petWoner submits that thase pefttons are squarely covered by order dated 15/09/2005 passed by this Court hi W.P. No. 191472004 and other connected mattere. Leamed counsel appearing for the State has no ob|ecUon. 's-sss— Accordingly, the petttlons are allowed in tenns of the order dated 15/09/2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1914/2004 and other connected matters. — Sd/- Satish K. ^nihotri Judge ^ 1^ ;.:|:|S:^i3^^^i^-S^ ^ ^V--^S^S-^^ ^^"{SiSS'ts£^ ;.UAW%',. sas