r- COURT OF JUDSCATURE CHHATTESQARH : BILASPUR UNIf il. J. ONPRS ^ t^E'iS^^^S 1. Tula Ram Dhruw, S/o. Dhanau, aged aboui 50 years, Ri'o. Viliage & Post Raseda, Tehsii Baloda Bazar, Dist'ict Raipur (C.G.) 2. Gautam Dhruw, S/o. Ganga Ram, aged about 53 years, R/o. Village & Post Raseda, Tehsil Baioda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Nunna La! Kannoje, S/o. Teej Ram, aged about 51 years, R/'o. Viiiage & Post Latawa, Tehsi! Baioda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Bazeet Ram Yada'A', S/o. Jhangiu, aged about 50 vears, R/o. Viliage & Post Raseda, Tehsij Baioda Bazs.r, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Garud Singh, S./a. Khamha-! Singh, aged about 59 years, R/o. Viilage •Jhonks, Post Lahva, Tehsii Baloda Sazar, District Raipur (C.G.) Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through Secretary, Pubiic VVorks Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur /r^ (^.I^S.J Ensinesr in ChisT, Pub!ic Works Department, Manfraiaya D.K.S. Shawan, Raipur (C.G.) isefit: Shri Sushii Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Panet Lasvyer for the StaSe / respondents. rB-7 (Passed on 03'° April, 2007) (1) (1) By this petitlon, !earned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners namely; Tu!a Ram Dhruw, Gautam Dhruw, Munna Lal Kannoje, Bazeet Ram Yadav/ and Garud Singh were 1 ^f^ ^\ "^> ^ employed on'18.9.79, 01.7.80, 2S.10.81, 18.9.79 and 21.4.77, respectiveiy as Gangmen. The petitioners, who have worked for more than 15 have attained the status of oermanent Ganamen. Thev seek a reiief that the petitioners, being permsnent gangmen be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)Adh!"iyam, 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967') resd with Fundamenta! Rule (for short T.R.')56. (2) According to the iearned counse! for the petitioners, the petitioners have attained fhe status of permanent employees, as defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Ruies, 1979 (for short 'the Rules,1979'), framed under Articie 3Q9 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permanent smployee, the petitionsrs would rstlre on attaining the age of 62 ysars on superannuation underths provisions ofthe Act, 1967. (3) Learned counse! aopearina for the Detitionsrs v/ould submit t'nat \—/; the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decis'on of this Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in W.P. No.108/2005 (Govind Vs. State of Chhatt'sgarh & Others) and other connected matters. (4) Learned counsei appearing for t'ne respondents/Stats does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitior.ers, (5) Accordingly, the petitioners, who'are permanent gangmen, are entitied to retire on attaining the age of 62 years, in accordance v/'th the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge