^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRIT PETiriON (8) No. 4107 of2007 PETITIONER Sukhi Ram Yadav Aged 59 Yrs., S/0 Stari BodSiiraia Yadav, By Post: - Labour (Jal Upbhokta - Shrannk) Woridng as Permanent Gang Man, Mahanadi Water Resourees Division, RudAi, Dhamtari (C.G.), R/0 Village - Bhanpuri, Tahsil &Distt Distt. Dhamtari [C.G.] RESPONDENTS VERSUS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarii Throu^i the Secretary, Water Resources Departmeut, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, RAIPUR, Distt. RAJPUR (C.G.) 2. The Executive Engineer. Mahaaadi Water Mariagemeut ProjeetDam Division no. 02, At Ruddri, Distt.: - Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Sub-Divisional Qfficer, Mahanadi Water Resources Deptt. Sub - Division No. 01, At Ruddri, Distt.: - Dhamtari, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CQNSTrTUTION OF INDIA Slnale Bencto: Hon'Me Justtce Stori Sattsh K. AsnihotriL Present: Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani. Advocate forthe oetitioner. Smt. Aiiju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State/respoadents. OMDER (Passed on 13th day ofjuly, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for tiie pBtitioner subnats Aat Ihe petitioner, who was employed in the year 1977 as daily wage labour in Ihe establishment of respondents No.2 airi 3, seeks a relief that the petitioner, being pemiaaent gangman- be retired at the age of 62 years in aceordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (tbr short IIie Act, 1967') read wilh Fundamental Rule 56. 2. Accordmg to teamed counsel for tbe petitioner, the petitioner attatoed ihe status ofpermanent employee, as defined urider Rule 2(c) (rfthe Chh^tisgarh (Workcharged and Contmgency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979,framed '\ ^—^ ^^l under Article 309 ofthe Constitution oflndia. After having attained the status of Ihe pennanent employee, the petitiwier would retire on attainting the age of62 years on superannuation under the provisions ofthe Act, 1967. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subnuts that the oase of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court passsd oa 4 Jaauary, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 108 of2005 (Gcwind vs. State ofChhaMsgarh and others) and other conneeted matters. 4. Leamed counsel appearine tbr fhe State/respondents does not dispute 1fae submissions made by leamed counsel ai»earingfor the petitioner. 5. The respondents are at liberty to consider the facts ofthe case as to whether fte petitioner has completed 15 years of service as gMigmaa. In tfae event, it is found tiiat the petitioner has completed 15 years of service, tiie case shall be govemed by the decision of this Court in the matter of Govind vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (supm). 6. Aecordingly, the petitioner, who is pennanent eangman, is eirtitled to retire on attainine the aee of62 years in accordance with the provisions oftheAct, ^ 1967. 7. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agmhotri . Judge : Amit \