mK6l£ ansfii.i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASFUR W.P.ISINO._^2-~] /2007 PETITIONE: RESPONDENTS (A €€< Jftunau Ram Dheemar, 'S'/o. Jha^ar aged about 60_years, R/o. Village Bhaisa Post Kharora, Tehsil 8s District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS l^- State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2^- Executive Engineer, Water Management, Division No. 2, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) o' 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Manageraent, Sub Division No. 5, Kanki, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22f OF THE CONSTITUTION OF!ND!A FOR JSSUANCE OF'A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR QM>ER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MArrER HI6H COURT OT CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. 927 of 2007 Petitioner ; Jhunau Ram Dheemar Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh and others SB:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate for •the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Ponel Lawyer for the State/respondents. OR bER (Passed on this 14th Day of February, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner, who has worked for more than 25 years as Songman seeks a relief that the petitioner being permanent gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhatt'isgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short- 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule (for short- •F.R.')56. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of perni<inent employee, as defined under Rule 2(c) of +he Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Emptoyees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short- 'the Rules, 1979'), framed under Art'icle 309 of the Constitution of India. After having att'ained the status of -the permanent employee the petitioner would retire on attainting the age of 62 years superannuation under the provisions of -the Act, 1967. on /^ 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of +his Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in W.P. No. 108/2005 (Sovind Vs. State of Chhatt-isgarh & o-rfiers) and other connected matters. 4. Leomed counsel appearing for the respondents/S'tate does not di^ute the submissions made by learned counset for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is permanent yingmoui, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordonee with the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ibhash