IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I'I'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (C G ) iv“ CONTEMPT aw: No. 3 Z PETITIONERS I 1. Goverdhan' Prasad Son of Shri / Sahdev Rathore, aged about 49 years, Occupation Service (Gangrrian); Resident.of Village Ashaud, Ta'hsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Ghasiram Son ofSShri Darasram, aged about 49 years, Caste Sahu, Occupation Service (Gangman), \ Resident of Girari, Tahsil Baradwar, ' District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). Firtu Ram Patel Son of Shri Mohit Ram, aged about 46 years, Occupation Service (Gangman), Resident of ‘Village Temar, Post ‘ Temar,’ Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G5). ‘ U‘ VERSUS 1. M-KaRduab‘, aged about 55 ‘ years, Son of Not Known, Public Works and National Highway, DKS Bhawan Raipur (C G ) RESPONDENTS 'CONTEMNORS Secreta ry, Department -' it ‘ "—‘L @V \ (t9 G. S. So!anki, aged about 60 years Son of Not Known, Chief Works D. K. Jain, aged about 59 years, Son Engineer, ' Public Department Raipur (C.G.). K. K. Pipari, aged about 55 years Son of Not Know, Superintendent Engineer, National Highway, Biiaspur (C.G.). of ~ Not Known, Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.). P. K. Gupta, aged about 55 years Son of Not Known, Sub Divisional Officer, National Highway, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). D. C. Patley, aged about 52 years Son of Not Know, Sub Divisionai Officer, Public Wqrks Department, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 215 OF THE ONSTITUTION' OF .INPIA READ WITH SECTION '10 & 12 OF C .y" CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT \ ' ' @ single Bnch:Hon'b!e 5hri safish K. Agnihofri, .T. ‘ Mr. Ashok Kumar 5hu£<¥a, counsel for fhe pe‘rifioner's. V ‘ Mr. V3.5. Moerthy, Senior counsel for fhe respondents. ¢ ‘ V (Passed on 13% Day of February, 2007) This was in The case of 6avind Vs. Sfafe of Chha‘rfisgarh md ofhers (WP. No. 108 of 2005), whic has been decided by fhis Courf on 4.1.2007, wherein This Cour? heid Thai fhe permmem gangmen are entitled to refire on Whining The age of 62 years on superannuaiion. 2. In fhe case. cf The peiifioner, the permmenf gangmen may approach fhg concerned authorities in fhe lighl' of said judgmenf for appropriafe relief. 3. In view of the above, ihe coniempi pefiiion is dismissed as no case has been made ou‘f far confempf. Na arder as to cosfs. / / iii/— SATISH K. ANGNIHO'I'Rl Judge Subhqsh / Hrga counr OF cHHATrIseARH AT ermsrun Csnfempf Case No. 36 of 2007 e G ‘ ORDER h Pétifioners : Goverdhan Prasad and cfhers Versus Réspandenfs : MK. Rauf and whers Prcsen'l':i