^ [\\ b~;;. c^ m THE HXGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BXLASPUR [WRIT JOTUSDICTION] WmTPElIISONNO. ^SoJ OF 2002 IN THE MATTER OF: SAMA^IU Aged about 55 years S/oSriTijau Vill.S& P.0. - Ahilda. Tahsil - Boloda Baser Distt. Raipur {Chliattisgai'h} PETITIONER VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATHSGARH i Secretary Water Resouroes Department, Secretanat^ Raipiir {C>G,) 2. CHIEF ENGINEER Malianadi Project, Raipiir (C.G.) 3. BXBCUTIVE ENGINEBR, Water Resource^ Division No. 2 Baloda Bazar^ Distt-Raipur [C.G.] 4. SUBDIVISIONALOFFICER, Water Managexnent Subdivision No. 6 Balodaba2sar Dist Raipur, [C.G.j ^ft -^y ^•y.. ^"" RESPONDENTS To, The Hoii'ble ChiefJu^tic^ and His Conipanion Justic^s of the Hon'bie Higb Court of Chhattisgarh at Btlaspur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L__- .^ HIOH COURT OF JUDICATTJRE CHHATTISOWH: BLASPUR Sinalc Bench: Srtish K Aanihotri. J WRIT PETITION N0. 1914 of 2004 Bisahu Ram Yadav Verous State of Chhattisgarh & Others WR1T PET1710N N0. 766 of 2003 Sevak Ram Versus Stato of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETI710N N0.2237 of 2003 Tejj Lal Kurmi Vorsus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PCTIT10N N0.1271 of 2004 Kashiram Dheemar Vor$us State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PET1710N N0.1698 of 2004 Lodga Ram Rawat Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others a 49. s la WRIT PET1710N N0.1709 of 2004 Panchu Ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION N0. 1766 of 2004 Paras Dhoowar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PE71T10N N0. 2276 of 2004 Fekulal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisoarh & Others WRIT PET1710N N0.3612 of 2003 Parsu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PCTITION N0.1507 of 2002 Samaru Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ::^.l- g ..iil. >^li' Mr. Vinay Pandey. Mr. Sunil Ottwani and Mr. S.K. Dadsena, leamed counsel for the petitioner. . Mr. V.V.S, Murthy, & Mr. P.S. Koshy, leamed Dy. • Advocate Generals wjth Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava & Mr. Vh/ek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyers for the State of Chhattisgarh.___ _ 'ffiiia laa ia! :?gll: •;.-1^1 Sraje^ ORDER (Passed on 15m S(^ptember, 2006) The petitionera in thto batch of writ petltions are working as casual labour gangs. Tho date of retirement was 55 yoare, ao per oiroular dated 09.03.2000. Tho respondont State subsequontty by circular datod 16.08.2004 increased the age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years. This Court in W.P. No. 1149 of 2003 has considered this dispute as to whether the casual labour gangs, who have retired on attainjng the age of 55 years be glven the beneflt of the circular dated 09.03.2000 for the purpose of retirement on 60 years, and order dated 29.09.2004 of this Court covers squarely the dispute involved in this batch of cases. Accordlngly, the petltlons are dlsposed of In terms of the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by this Court h W.P. No.1149 of 2003. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sl '^i. a illa ^ia "iX •,ia :.^IISa ;ilM ';^^SI