HLGHCO^URTOFCHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (5) No. 2595 of 2008 PetiSoner Versus Firanta Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Khoroa Ram, Aged about 61 years, R/o. Viliage Saraipatera, Post: Jhajhpurikaia, Tahsil: Lormi, Distt.: BHaspur (CG). iespondents 1. Stste of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretery, Dspartment of Water Resourcss, MantraSay, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur(CG). 2. The Sub-DMsiona! Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division - Lormi, Distt: Biiaspur (CG). UIBIT WR!T PETITOiiy UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THI CONSTiTUTiON OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri N. N. Roy, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwvedi, Deouty Govt. Advocate for e rssoondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 9"' day of May, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties the matter isheardfinally. Learnedcounse! appearing for the pstifioner submite that the peti&oner was woriang in the ofRce of the Sub Divisional Officer, Water Rssources Department, Sub-Division, Lormi, DJsfc'ict Bilaspur on the post of permanent Gangman. Vids impugned order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was retired from senflce w.s.f. 28.2.2007 on comptetion of 60 yeare of service, ftough he is entitted to servs tii! he attains the age of 62 years. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionsr as wel! as teamed counsel appearing for the respondents/Stats jointiy submit that the csuestion of law, invoivsd in the present writ petition, is the sam& asto that of in /t^\ S^ ''^b^ 1 .""tt% i ^. ^. y ^ ^iJ18"^' 4. Thakur '2- Govind & others Vs. SteSe of C.G. & Others { 2007 (2) C.G.L.J. 29}. •Atierein it is held that the permanent gangmen are entitled So be rstired on aSSaining the age of 62 years, in accordance with the provisions of {hs Chhsffisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarehiki-Ayu) Adhrniysm, 1967. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State forther submite that if the case of the petitioner te on the sams footings, there is no reason to deny him the benefite available to the permanent gangmen. Accordingly, this v/rit petition is aitowed jn terms of the order passed in the case of Govind & others (supra), subject to verification of ttie faet asto whether the petitioner has acquired the ststus of permanent gangmen, No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K; Agnihotri Judge