IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH. W P NO. I2i9 /2002 SMT. SIRVA BAI DHRUW AGED 55 Shri Brij Lal Dhruw, Daily Wage labour of Jal Upbhokta Sanstha Bordra, Mahanadi Searsh Jalprabandh , Sub-Division No.I, Rudri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari PETITIONER years Wife of Secretary Deartment of Water Resources, DKS Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh (ij CHIEF ENGINEER Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (3} SUB—DIVISIONAL OFFICER Mahanadi Searsh Jalprabandha Sanstha, Sub—Division No. I , Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Mahanadi WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT / WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTION ETC. 1. Particulars of Petitioner As stated in the caption above. particulars of the Respondents As stated in the caption above. r..2... p a. “04 ”:%3\?§f ’.. ’Tk ~ Chhattisgarh, V Village Karetha, P.O. Rudri, ‘Tahsil and Distric§VXDhamtari v. Chhattisgarh. da‘ed V E R S U S. RESPONDENTS :(b STATE OF CHHATTISGARH through 5 ‘3 XI-HC—‘78 ,... < WWW mmm 293—2004 Pelitioners through their re §pective counsel. State by Shri V.V.S. Mux’dy, Dy. Advocate General. Heard. 2. This batch of cases relate t4) Gangmam ChOkjdar etc. ofth§K§ater \Resources Department. Since the 1uestion involved in all the petitions is similaiathey are being decided lay ‘this common. order. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that P.W.D. Manual. Volume l Chapter iv deals with Accounts of WJorks and Stores. l’ara 4.003 dealss With Registration and Payment of Daily Casual LabourfRegular Labour Gangs. Para 4.003 reads thus:- Casual Labour Gangs- When work is to be done by daily ubordinate incharge shall prepare a muster names of the work-people: their'attendance. unt payable on this account. Monthly muster ose‘d alter seven days‘or as convenient. t 4.003(A) ' casual labour oangs the < rollj’ which will shox’y the i y the york done and the amc rol s ifnecessary. may be c (B) Permanent Gangs« \ (a) (b) AC) (d) (e) Any recruitment to .rt gular gangs will be done- only with the permission of SE. Labdwurers more than 58 years of age'shall not be employedfcontinued in i egul ar gangs,” ‘ _ XI—HC—‘78 6:2? "m 2oo mmfawia? mmmv ' mmm 4. It is submitted that theIE is no change in the Manual. He further submitted that by a notification, manual cannot be superseded. J ' Counsel for petitioner sub‘rhitte’d that the as per'annezx‘ure P-E (WP. Not ’ 2044/2004), the Additional Sec Fll3/1 l/S/ZOOO has issued dire . x should not be allowedto work mm wm tvsifcmm ‘krf‘ Titaghur’/Paper Mills reported it hearing; the decision of High Cl VMadh'ya Pradesh and others ‘—v- 2003 Was also brought to the not‘ 6. Counsel for petitioner f1 . issued another direction \iide let issued dimctions ‘ that the; ’erden mm(w) referenceto the above letter: the q employees hide its letter dated . per Annexure P-3 that the emplc 55 years are 1'. Chokidar (‘2). L Civil (5) Mali (6) Khalasi (7) G2 it was made ”dear that the ordet daily wage employees and they Counsel f r petitioner submitted ’onia deci ion in Union of India g andanother reported in 2003 (5 ., 4 *etarv vide letter dated 9-3-2000 hearing no. etion t that the daily wage emplgyees/labours on attaining more than 55 years of age. hi Government has clarified the category of the 3-7-2000 bearing no. F/13/lli’31/Sal2000 as; yees who should not be allowed to work after abour (unskilled), (3)7Helper (unskilled), (4) ngnan and (8) Process Surveyor. In the letter. under reference’will not be applied on other may be kept in service till 60 years of age. L that it “is discrimination. He’pla'ced reliance nd another —v— International Trading Co. Ltd. y SCC 437 and State of Orissa and others —v- 1 AIR\198S SC 1293. During the Course of )urt of MP. in WP. No. 3200/2003 (State of Sint. Bhagwati Bai and another) dated 23-3- ..ce ofthis Court. l trther submitted thati the State Government .er dated {7-4-2000 as per Armeémre {’34 and directing retirement? of employees of Water i x—HC’M 78 <1??? EFL zoo " mmm Resources Department attaining the age of 55 years, are cancelled. He further not been fair in removing the employees. He removed pursuant to notification dated 9-3’ ,quen‘t notification dated 17-4-2000 and 3—7? I‘here 15 not awh1sper m the Older , \{iemsmn taken by the State on 1 :eneral brought to the notrce o? the Court th /31’2004 whereby the age m tl ‘ as 60 years. The letter dated 16- Wam fg€tm $simm€¥r submitted that Depattment has submitted that they have been 2000 (Annexure 1’ 2) ana subs 2000 haVe not been eons1dered 7. - Learned Dy Advocate ( W mete—or g2 ’ WWW 2000l3$0903 t I r Weigwm meta-c5 wwmtttm WMWW ‘wwwame W 5o astzaatr e -8-2004 Vrde letter beanng no F 14-33’ "\‘QT ‘ Water Resources Department has been kept 3-2004 1s quoted below ‘ w wrr warm/gm a nae WWW we a mws—m/m/W/ 2000. _ 'w\eaf§a'qa WW '1 W wmmWHelattt§l /W'attaeaaa%mu‘tm awe—‘eweuwet WWWEW‘S’ I amet‘éaWmWe—m wwwmwnea- -a“<msn§$3rr’Wtq a m q? are ea Twat?! - WW(W) g ‘ XI-HC‘W78 mm(W)