IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. Writ Petition (s1 No.13: €) [2007 waver éa paw P Aljun Lal Yadu S/o Sarju Yadu, Village Funde dih , Post Jara, P.S. Khorara, TahBalodabazar ,Dist‘tict. Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner Versus / 1. State of Chhatti$garh , Through, Secretary, Department of water Management, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.Sub Divisional officer, Water management, Sub division No. 7 Balodabazar , Thana kahora, Distt. Raipur (C.G. ) 3.Executive engineer, Water management, Balodabazarpivision No. 2 Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Respondents ’t wRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATRURE OF MANDAMUS, PROBITION, CERTERORI OR ANY OTHER DIRECTIONiSl OR ORDERISI MN.“ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA5PUR W. P.($) No. 1308 of 2007 Pe1'H'ioner : Arjun Lal Yadu Versus Responden‘fs : 51am of Chhcm'isgarh and what‘s SB: Hon'ble Mr. Jusfice 5a1'ish K. AgnihoWi, J Present Mr. Ashok Pa'ril, Advocafe for The pe‘ri‘rioner'. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Depufy Governmznf Advoca‘fe for The S‘mfe/respondenfs. ORDER (Passed on fhis 8*“ Day of March, 2007) 1. By This pe'ri‘rion, learned counsel appearing for fhe pe‘rh‘ioner submifs fhaf fhe pefifioner was employed on 15-5-1986 as permanenf Gangman in fhe Public Works Depar‘hnenf, who has worked for more Than 21 years as Gangmon. He seeks a relief 'l'ha'l 'lhe pe'li'l'ioner being permanen‘f gangman be re'fired of ‘l‘l'le age of 62 years in accordance wifh fhe Chhcm‘isgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki—Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for shor'l’ 'fhe Ac‘l, i967')~ read wi‘l’h Fundamental Rule (for shar‘l’ 'F.R.')56’ . According 1'0 learned counsel for The pe'l'i‘l'ioner, The pe‘l’ifioner a‘l'fainecl fhe sfo‘l’us of permanenf employee, as defined under Rule 2(c) of 'l'he Chha‘l’fisgarh (Workcharged and Confingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for shor‘l' "l'he Rules, 1979'), framed under Ar‘licle 309 of The Cons'ri‘l'u‘l'ion of India. Affer having affained fhe sfa'lus of fhe permanen'l' employee fhe pe1'i'rioner would retire on afrain‘ringv me age of 62 years on wpemnnuofion undor fhe provisions of ‘rhe Ad, 1967. 3. Lao-«nod counsel appearing for the pefi'rioner would slbmi'l' 1+m‘r fhe case of mo pzfifioner is squorcly covered by the decision of this Cour'i passed on 4*“ January, .2007 in WP. No. 108/2005 (Gm/ind Vs. State of Chhotfisgorh & others) md other connected matters. 4. earned counsel appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is permment gwgman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly oilowed. No order es to costs. W_ Sdl— Judge than o l Satish K. Agnihotri i L