&^ Versus ftesponclents 1. KC6H COURT OF CHHATT[S6ARH AT BILA5PUK Wnt Petititm (5)No 3457 pf 2007 Petitionei' oot Singh, S/o LateChaniru. Aged abour 64 yecrs, R/o - Viltoge- Asulkhar anet P.5.- Biantyrotcppyr, bistt- Xcmker (C-6.) State of Chhatt'isgarii, Through 5ecreTary. Public Works D^»artment, &X5. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. SuperintendsnT Engineer Public Works (Seportment, Bastor, Circfe Jagdatpur (C-<S.) 3. Execurive Engineer, Pubiic Works Department,(B/R), Oistt- fcinker (CA) 4. Joint DirecTor, Treaasry, Accounrs ond Pension Depurtment, Jugdatpur (C.6.) WRIT PETrTOIN UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF TME CONSTrTUTION O!8 INGIA Singte Beneh : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. ^gnihotri. J. Shri Anoop Majumdar, ^efvocnte for 1+ie petitioner. Shri Amrito Etas, Panet LoNiyer for the r'espondents. : ORALORtsER O'as^d on this 7th day of May, 20%) 1. With tha con^nt of the par-ties, •tlie matter is tnken up for hearing, finally. 2. Leamed counsel appeoring for •the petitioner aibmits thot the petitioner was qtpointed as Perfndnent iSongmiwi on 10.9-1965 in the Public WoH<a Cteyartment, 5ub t5ivision. Bhcuujpratapur- According to ieameci counset appearmg for +ha petitioner, the ^^wices of the petitioner was reguiarized by +he 9ovemment after comptetion of 25 yeors of service, os he uus absorbed under work chorged establidiment. The patitioner retired from service on 31.7.2005. Thus. the petitioner is entitfetl to grant of pension. 3. Leomed counse! further submits Ihot the question of law asto whether the petitiiwier is entitled to family pension or not is u!et! setl-Ied by -this Court in the matter of M- A. Hokim Vs. Stote of Mfltihya Pradesh (noui C.G.) and 0-thers (W.P.No. 4135/2004), wherein, -this Court h<is possed the order on 28.8-2006 allowing •>he petition. It is next con+encied •rtiat -rtie State <5ov+. hns preferred ^acial LaavB Petition No. 19728/06 before the &jpreme Court- against the amd ord&r Aited 28.8.06 and -the same was dismissed on 8.12.2006. 4. Shri Ainrito tSos, [eame.d Panet Lawyer q'yearing for the State submits! -tha-t- the question of law involved in •this (»tition is identiea! to thot of m -the matter of M. A. Hakim (Supro). Me furrtier subinits -thot 1he petition be altowed ;aibject to verification of facts. 5. In viesw of the foregoin9. 1he writ petition stands di^osed of h the same tarms i.e. oclmissible pension dialt be released withsn a period of two months from tottay, as -the petitioner has retired from service long btuA on 321.7 2005. Nucosts. y „ . - ^ Sd/- .•:' Satish K.Agmhotri Thdun- -, Judge ; •„