IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUj? W.P.No. ,s^ /06^ 'V SS^j&al PETITIONER ...<^ '.••''"fv.--" '..••{'^V'i'l'' .. 6%t^ .^' ^^y' %^-" o^ ... c^^.^ ^* :••-/• /'^, .^..>" z- -^ ^A /^ ^ ^^/y' ^' 'l. Sadhuram Yadav S/o Bansilal Yadav aged about 58 years R/o Vffla^eRaga Tah. Sakti District Janj^r- Chainapa. C.Gr. . 2. Neel Singh Gond S/o Buturain Gond aged about 52 years Oeeupation- Semce {Daily paid eiaptoyee in PWD) R/o Gargodih Post offiee & Tah. Sakti District Janjgir- ChampaC.G ,3. Smt. Malti Bai D/o Punirain Yadav W/®Sadhu Rain Yadav aged about 56 years R/o VUlage Raga Tah & Post Office Sakti District Janjgir Ghaaipa C.G. > 4. Mahettar Rain Yadav S/o Vishambher Yaday aged about 54 years R/o Village Dongiya Parotha Tah. Sakti District Janjgir champa C.G. ., 5. Srat. Firo Bai D/o Bishnu Ram. aged about 52 years R/o Village Dongiya Parotha Tah. Sakd District Janj^r chanipa C.G. -^ 6. Smt. Deo Mati Rawat D/o Akti Ram Rawat W/o Tiharu aged about 53 years R/o ViUage Dongiya Parotha Tah. Sakti District Janjgir champa C.G. ^' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary 8s Mmistry " PubHc'". of/,Works Department D.K.S. Bhawan Ralpur C.G 2. Chief Engineer Public Work Department, Bilaspur C.G. 3. Supermtendent Engineer Public Work Department, BUaspur C.G. 4. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Champa Division District- Janjgir- Champa C.G. 5. Sub-Divisional Of5cer F'ublic ^ Work Department Sub- Division Janjgir Champa C.G. ^" WRTLPETITION UNDER ARTIC ALE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA k r -^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihotri, J. W. P. No. 1576 QF 3006 Petitioners : Sadhll Rain and others. Versus Respondents : Stete ofC.G. aad others. Shri Y. Chatiuvedi, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemiaent Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (29*- March, 2006( The petitioners, einployed as Gang Men, were retired on coiupletion of30 years ofservice. The petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1928/2004, seeking a reUef to direct the respondents to retire the petitiouers on superamiuation at fhe age of 60 years. This Court whUe hearfng fhe above luentioned writ petition along with other petitions wherein, fhe same issue was involved, directed the respondeats to allow Gaug Men, who had retired on conipletion of 30 years of service to rejoun fhe services and continue tiU they attain the age of60 years. On the qiiestion of regularization the petition was rejected reserving Uberty to fhe petitioners to raise the "ESEP' ^-^ a 6. issue of regularization before appropriate foruia, if necessaiy. The State Govemment by order dated 30.3.2005 deleted the clause <who on coiapletion of 30 years of semce' for retirenient ia the case of Gaag inen •vriih prospective effect However, this Court after haviug considered the facts aad circujnstances of the case and order/circular dated 30.3.2005 directed the respondents to consider even fhose cases where Gaag inen had retired prior to 30.3.05, aad to permit theia to continiie tiU tiiey attaui the age of 60 years. The petitioner was granted reUef accordin^gly. In the present case the petitioners have sought for paynient of back wages froxu fhe date of his retiTenient on coinpletion of 30 years of semce tiU date of reiastateiaent, pursuaat to the order dated 20th Septeiuber, 2005, passed by this Court in earUer petition W.P. No. 1928/2004, filed by the petitioners, In fhe facts and circuinstances of fhe case, when fhe petitioner had no right to be reinstated and the pctitioner was aUowed to continue on fhe basis of subsequent order dated 30.3.2005 which was inade effective w.e.f. 30.3.2005. Direction to inake payment of back wages to the petitioner on a siniple principle of 'no work no pay', would defeat the purpose of ttie order/circular dated 30.3.2005 read witfa order dated 20.9.2005, passed by this CoMrt. T^1 ,-^ 7. Having regard to fhe facts and circumstances of the case and luaterial on itcord, this petition deserves to be disinissed. The petition is accordingly disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ^