^^^ ^. '(A, ^ ./" ,/' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDJCATURE AT BILASPJEfR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0.1 ^^^ /2003 7 PETITIONERS 1. ^7^..^\ -%¥ o ./-^ ^?Q ^' J^/ «?? I^SPONDENTS Mohanlal Dadsena S/o Luduram Aged about 51 years R/o ViUage Bori, P.0. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ /Hemurain S/o Shivrajm Aged about 58 years R/o ViUage Kirgi, P.0. Tumri Boad, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Gendlal Sahu S/o Gopaldas Sahu Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Kirgi, B.O. Tumri Boad, ^' Distt. Rajnaiidgaon (C.G.) VERSUS/ State of Chhattisgarh Through-the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Frnance Secretary, State of Chhatisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer National Highway Division, PWD, Raipur (C.G.) ^-—- "./t ^ ^. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF tNDIA 1 ^^. -^o ^ HIOH CTXJRT OF JUDICATURE O+IATnSOARH: QLASFUR SinaleBench : Srtish K Aanihotrl. J WR1T PETI-nON N0.93 of 2006 Bharatram Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETmON N0.4633 of 2004 Ramchand Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT REPT10N N0.2307 of 2004 Ramkumar Thwarl Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PEmiON N0.1184 of 2004 Punai Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WFtIT PCTIT10N N0.933 of 2004 Dheraharam & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others VWIT PET1TION N0.716 of 2004 Madan Lal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PET1T10N N0.144 of 2004 Thanu Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WWivS^i WRIT PE71T10N N0.1723 OF 2003 Lathkhor Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PCTITION N0.1722 Of 2003 Mohan Lal Dadsena & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETinON N0.4830 OF 2004 Kartikram Halba Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETTnON N0.2713 of 2003 Gangaram fii Another Vs. Stata of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PET1TION N0.1946 of 2003 Preet Lal & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION N0.1080 of 2003 Gokul Ram Verms Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 'fZ WRIT PET1TION N0.1835 of 2003 Chhedilal Verma & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PE71TION N0. 1879 Of 2003 Manglu Ram & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WFaT PEmiON N0. 1919 of 20W Santuram & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and othera WFUT PET1T10N N0.2046 oT 2003 Kejuram Verma & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRITPET1T10N N0.4721 of 2004 Shankarlal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another VW1T PET1T10N N0.4722 of 2004 Mohit Ram & Another Vs. Stato of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PEnTION N0,4723 of 2004 ^ Ajay Patel Vs. State of Chhattlsgarti and Another WRITPETITION N0.4731 of 2004 Baldeo Das & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETmON N0.1664 of 2003 Smt. Mana Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PET1TION N0.1663 trf 2003 Sukhi Ram & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETIT10N N0. 4780 of 2004 Blshat Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and othera WRIT PETTPON N0.4716 or.ZOM Bansi & C5thers Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PEmiON N0.1673 Of 2003 Samaru & Others ."i;i3% aia . ^:?s 31 !• SfS ^tM V9VK ^^ • - Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others VURIT PETIT10N N0.3532 at 2003 Dainik Vetanbhogi Mazdoor Sangh, Durg Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PFmiON N0.2543 of 20)5 Rohit Satnami & Others VS. State of Chhattlsgarh and others WRIT PET1TION N0. 2959 of 2004 Khedia Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarti and Another VWIT PETTPON N0.3280 af 2004 Ram Singh & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PET1T10N N0.1970 Of 2004 Dlleram Patel & Others V5. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETTnON N0.4200 of 2004 . Digree Lal & Others Vs. ^ - ^) State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETITION N0.3886 of 2004 Roopgir & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PEnTION N0.2688 <rf 2004 Prabhu Ram & Another Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and Another VWIT PETmON N0.2683 of 2004 Suklal Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and Another WRIT PETIT10N N0.2682 of 2004 Gopi VS. State of Chhattlsgarii and Another WRIT PET1T10N N0.2681 of 2004 Bala Ram Sahu & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PET1T10N N0.2680 of 2004 Juthel Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another 3S' •:'t I WRIT PETniON N0.2678 of 2004 Shrawan Kumar & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another VWUT PEDTION N0.2667 Of 2004 Puneet Ram Sahu Vs. Stale of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PETI'PON N0.2668 of 2004 Saflk Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT F'ETTnON N0.2472 Of 2004 Sewa Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT pen-noN N0.2471 or 2004 Vishnu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another WRIT PEnTION N0.3039 of 2004 Deendayal Barate Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETIT10N N0.2041 of 2003 •IS a ^sy ^^. Present Man Singh & Others Vs. State of Chhattlsgarti and others WRIT PETTnON N0.2048 <rf2003 Latel Ram Kewat & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PEn-nON N0.2679 of 2003 Kripalu Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Wr. V.V.S. Murthy, & Mr. P.S. Koshy, leamed Dy. A&focate Generals with Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava & Mr. Vivek Sharma, leamed Panel Lawyers for the State of Chhattisgarh. » 'ii' a i!Sim Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Mr. Sunil Ottwani, Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnav, Mr. Anll Singh Rajput, Mr. R.S. Baghel, Mr. B.R, Ghosh, Mr. Gautam Khetrapat, Mrs. Fauzia Mirza, leamed counsel for the petitioner(s). ORDER (Passed on 15"' S^itwrfcer, 2005) .s The petltloners In thls batch of wrtt petltlons are worklng as pennanent. Gang Men in the Public Works Department of the State Government. Accordingty, thia botch of writ petitiona 13 being dispoaed of ig|| by a common order. II (2) The petitioners were employed as pjermanent gang men with the Public Works Department of the Govemment. The petitionera Bl J^ :'^: m s81 lli; s! •w continue to work as casual permanent gang men ever since, By order dated 02.04.2003 / 24.04,2003, the respondent / State decidsd to termlnate the sen/lces of the petltloners / gang men working in the Pubtlc Works Department either on completing 30 years of service or attaining the age of 60 years, which ever waa earlier. Pursuant to thia order, the petitioners were retired from their servicos on completion of 30 years of servico. During the pendeney of this petition, tho Stato Govemment by order dated 24.03.2005, decided to retire gang men woridng in the Publ'c: Works Department on attaining the age of 60 years and decided to delete the clause "retiring the gang men on completion of 30 years of service". Thls order was made effectlve wlth effect from 30.03.2005. (3) After hearing the learned counsel for the partles, it is clear that the requlrement of completion of 30 years of service for the purpose of retirement has been deleted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. Learned counsel appearing for the State / respondent submits that this order would be offective from 30.03.2005 and as such the gang men who had already retired from 30.03.2005 may not be given benefrt of this order. The argument of the leamed counsel is not tgnabla and the same is nfci accepted. Purport of the order is quite clear and unambiguous as it appears from the perusal of the order as well as from the contentions of the petitioners that the gang nnen who have not completed the age of 60 years as on 30.03.2005, they wlll be allowed to continue till they attain the age of 60 years. It is informed by the teamed counsel for the petltibner(s) that some of the gang men, who have already retired on completion of 30 years of sen/ice, have been paid retiral benefits i.e. gratuity only. This will ba unfair, if the petitioners, who hava retired before 30.03.2005 on completion of 30 years of service, though they have still some years to go before 60 years of age, are not aiven benefit of order dated 30.03.2005. II:I Sf, i illi ! 3S' 1:!K:;w •^'^' ww* a' 10 W} (4) For the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to allow all the gang men, who had retired on completion of 30 years of service but have not attained the age of 60 years, to rejoin the services and continue till they attain the 6ge of 60 years, subjeot to depositing the retiral t?eneflts, ifany, given to them. (5) In some of the petitions, the petitioners have pnayed for regularization of their services as Gang-man. Leamed counsel fbr the petitlonere submit that the said prayer be dismissed as npt pressed at present. However, the liberty be granted to the petitionere to raise the issue of regularization befbre the appropriate forum, if necessary. The petitions with regard to the prayer of regularization are dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioners to raise the dlspute seeking redressal of the relief of regularization, if necessary, before the appropriate forum. (6) In view of the foregoing, the petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents are further dlrected to comply with this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/communication of this order. No order as to costs. Parties are entitled for certifled oopy of this order. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge