mum ^ RFNCH •\ •-...r:i, Vl ^^ -J^:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATUjlE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION NQ.A71^ /2005 PETITIONER .-:^c^W ptes^8""'^^-^'' ^eA..-- RESPQNDENTS d.^j. '%j:'^ /'1. VS.G cvs^K^ ^COPY^2 ??J!.K Jaisingh Tharam, S/o Shri Prabhooram Tharam, Aged about 50 years, R/o ViUage - Andhewada, Post Office Michgaon, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS StateofChhattisgarh Through-fhe Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Andhawada, District - Bhanupratapur (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 41 "g"^ ^?T<ff?T^, ^ftWI^. ^fl^y 3:?i^T'^y I^TJ^.'SII^ ^^T^W^r[ + WRWf ^W^.GJ..^.....-.5.7..^.^ '^re^?' ^T^ ^^I^R'^rf^' 5-12-2005 Slui ^oop Majutndar, Counsd Slm Sandeep Dubey, Go^t. Ad^ Heard. Counsel for the petitioner subslrits that.the matter relates to gang man. He farther submite that iri batch of casei Dadsena and others -v- State of Chli4ttisgarh and otliers), orders have been passed •^ on 15la September2005. This facf te not m a position to d| Shri Majumdar submits that tl|i he has not given the relief as there isj been ffled. Lithe order dated 15-9-2005 p| the Court has held as under:- "3.....,......,...Puiport of the| appears from the pemsal oftl^ petitioners that the gang men \} ^FrfoT^h 'RP^* ^ fec^t <Rs1^K ^T ^rf^? ^ni^f for the petitioner. fortheState. , mduding W.P. No. 1722/2003 (Mohanlal ispute this fact. |e petitioner approached to the authorities but no court order. Accordmgly this petition ha^ ,ssed in W.P. No. 1722/2003 m batch ofcases, order is quite clear and unabtmbuous as it order as well as from the contentions ofthe 'ho have not completed the age of 60 year-s as cn 30-03-2005, they wiB. be aljiowed to cotttinue till they attain the age of60 years. It is mfomied by the leafned counsel for the petitioners(s) that some of the gang men, who have alrea^y retired on completion of 30 years ofservice, have been paid retiral benefit^ Le.gi-atuity only. This vvffl be unfaii\ if the petitioners, who have re&ed t^ senice. though they have still| not giwn benefit oforder date4 4. For the reasons stated the gang men, who had retii'ecj efore 30-03-2005 on completion of30 ysars of some years tb go before 60 years of age, are 30-03-2005. ^bove, the respondents are directed to aUow all on completion of 39 years of sendce but have [Tft^ ^"fe^ XI-HG-22 ^I^T^T t^N''3?^T '^lt^^lft^ T ^ ^- <K~ ^ ,Z^[ "^FTRT^, ^ft^T?. tx^Sfl^ tt^ _..^.x£...s.Z4.A/ff,, '^TO^IT^RI^ - •' "¥I^ 200 ^i^T^^TW^fpr n^)t not attamed the age of 60 years,! attam the age of 60 years, subj| given to them. (5) Ih^some of the petitions, of their senices as Gangman. L| the said prayer be dismissed as gi'anted to the petitioners to r| appropriate fomm, if necessaiy. | regularization are disimssed as raise the dispute seekmg redress^ before the appropiate fomm.. (6) In ^iew of the foregoinl mdicated aboye. The respondei^i order wifhin a period of two ofthis order. No order as to cost4 orderpassed in W.P. 1755/2003. The re C.c. as per mles. - ^i^^h ^TR^f"? ft^ TT^R '^^P:T3TI^I to rejoin the sen'ices and contmue tifl they pct to depositing the retirai benefits, if any, ^he petitioners have prayed for regularization ^med counsel for the petitioners submit that pressed at present. However, the liberhr be ^ise the issue of regularization before the The petitions with regard to the prayer of |ot pressed with liberty to the petittoners to |1 of the relief of regularization, if necessaty, ^ the petitiom .stand.aBQwed to the extent are farther dii'ected to comply with this mo|itlis from the date of receipt/comti^imcatioii eilts This petition also stands allowedjto the extent mdicated above to the extent of ^pondents are farther dii-ected to comply with the orders within a period ofhvo month|$ from the date of commumcation/production of this order. M.W.P. No. 4552/2005 stands ^isposed of ,j^/ ..^> '3^e [Tft^ ^Ri^