HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 214 012008 PETEIQEEg ‘- Sukala Bai Wife of Klmrbahm Sahu, aged about 60 yeaxs, working as Permanent Gangnan, Rssident of Village Bhoring Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS : 1.- State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, DKS Bhawau, Raipur (CG). -RESPONDENTS . Sub Divisional Oiiicar, Kodar Shirsha Karya Jal Sansadhan Sub Division Mahasamund , District Mahasamund (CG). 3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). 4. The Sub'Engineer, Water Resources Depaiiment, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'hle W. Satish K. Agihotri, J.) ii Present : Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for ’Lhe petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11a; ofJanuary, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who \was appointed as daily wage labour in the establislmient of respondents No. 1 and 2, seeks a relief that the petitioner, being permanent Gangman, be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (AdlnvarshiLj-Ayu) Adhiniyann 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule 56. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2(6) of the X; Chliattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permanent employee, @ the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions 0fthe Act, 1967‘ learned counsel appearing far the peiitiomr submits that the case ofthe petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4m January, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 108 of 2005 (Govind Vs. State of Ckhatmgarh and others) and other connected matters. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not dispute the submissions made by Ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to consider the facts of the case as to whether the petitioner has completed 15 years of service as Gangman. In the event, it is found that the petitioner has completed 15 years of service: the case shall be governed by the decision of this Court in the matter ofGovind Vs. State ofChkam‘s'garh and others (supra}. Aceordingly: the petitioner, who is permanent Gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the provisions ofthe Aet,vl967. Thus, the writ petition is aiiowed subject to verification of facts of the case. No order asto costs. xx, ,,‘ 8d]. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur- x‘ @