o COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.AT BILASPUR gETmONER WRrr PETITION (S) No. 3104 of2008 Mahtm S/o - late Sunderlal Aged about 68 years R/o - Telibaiiciha Ravigram (Ghasidas Ward) Raipur(C.G.) \7ERSUS RE.SPONDEm'S : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Public Works Department Tliroiigli its Priecipal Secretary D.K-S Bhawan Raipw (C.G.) 2, Executive Engisieer (I) P.W.D. Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Offieer Sub Division No. 1 P'WD District Raipur (C.G.) WRILSTITION IJKDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF 'THE CONSTrrU'nON OF JND1A SB: Hon'Ue SSm K. Asniliotri, J. Present: Shi*i Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Anm Sao, Goveiriiiieiit Advocate- for the State/respondeiits. ORALORDER (Passed on 01st day of July, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the niatter is taken up for hearmg .tmally. 2. Learaed counsei appeari.ng for the petitioner sub.mits fhat the 'petitioner was appointed as Daily Wages Eiaployee on the post ofMason m Public Works De.partment, Raipur cn 1.1.1967 (Amiexiire P/l). .A^ccordiiig to Shri Pandey, the'sen'dces ofthe petitioner was classitied as penBanent skilled labour by the Labour court vi.de order dated 03.01.1996 (Asmexure P/2) and was entitled for all the benefits ofpemianent employee from the year 1997, The said order was upheld by the Industrial Court vide order dated 24.04.1997/15.05.1997 (Aniiexure P/S^^.therefore the petitioner is entitlQdto gi'ant offamily pension. 3. Shi'i Pandey farther submits th.at the petitioiier does not want to press relief clause 10 (i) and 10. (ii)and submits that with regard to the grant ofpension, "V tlie instant case is square.ly covered by the decision ofthis Court in the matter ofM.A. Hakim v. State ofMadhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and others (W.P. No. 4135/2004) w?faerein, this Court has passed t'he order on 28.8.2006 allowing the petition. It is next contended that the State Govemment has preferred Special Leave Petition No. .19728/06 befbre the Supre.m.e Court against the said order dated 28.08.2006 and the same was dismissed on 08.1.2.2006. 4. Shri Amn Sao, leamed Goveniment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the questi.cn oflaw involved inthis petitiosi is identical to that of in the matter of M.A. HaJcim (supra), He flirther siibmits that the petition may be allowed/subject to verification ofthe facts. 5. In view ofthe foregomg, the writ petition staiids dispossd of in the same te-i'ms i.e. admissible pensi.cn shall be released expeditiously, as the petitioner has retired long back fro-m the service on 31.08.2000. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Asmt