c r\ Af ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGAEH W.P.NO. -L3'<?>7/2002 PETITIONER SUKHI RAM RAWAT AGED 55 years Son of Sri Bodhi Ram, Daily wage Labour of Jal Upbhokta Sanstha, Potiadih, Mahanadi search Jal-Prabandh Sub-Division No.I, Rudri District -Dhamtari Resident of Vill.-Bhanpuri,Post-Demar,Tab. & Distt.-Dhamtari,Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS {..D STATE OF CHHATTISGARH -^^ ..^^^ ^,u &.»•' ..'s^ ,^v through the water Resources ^ Department DKS Bbawan Mantralaya,Raipur Chhattisgarh (2) CHIEF ENGINEER,Mahanadi water Project, water Resources Department Raipur Chhatisgarh. (3) SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER MAHANADI SEARCH JAL-PRABANDH Sub-Division No.I,Budri, Tahsil & District-Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF ME CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APROPRIATE WRIT ORD£R_QR-DX 51C' X1-HC-7S NIWII tb^n<*i '3"sr '<iww<i, yiily'i<o, r®i<niyy,< __....VAl..-..B...No.:,i.3..8.7^ os. W[. 200 (: ^ sn^i'tf??;' ('cpf^^i) sn^r w R'fi'* ^V 4tt^I »*<i^ ?^<tT^< ^f^l <tli^<l <iii<i[<'i<il-< ^naf 'it' 'fyzt <|aiw;it ^73TRn3II^I 29-9-2004 Petitioners througti •their re|: State by Shri ^'.V.S. Murtll-V Heard. .pective counsel. y, D^'. Advocate General. 2. Thisbatch ofcasesrelatet Resources Department. Since the sircular^they are being decided by Gangman, Chokidar etc. ofthe Water duestion involved ia all the petitions is Ithis conimon order. subdaits 3. Counsd for petitioner iv deals with Accounts of \\1 Registration and Pa\fiient of D^ Para 4.003 readsfhus:- 4.003(A) • Casual I.aboi casyal labour gangs, tlie rollj which wiil show the the/\vork done and the amd rolls ifnecessan.. mav be c] (B) Pemianent Gangs- .(a) ... ... ... (b) ,.. ... ... ,(c) ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... (e) Anv recruiimenl To i\ peniiission ofS.E. I.ab< employed/continued in that P.W.D. Manual. Volume 1 Chap^r orks aiid Stores. Para 4.003 deals '.vhh lily Casual Labour/'Regular Labour G-aiigs. ir Gangs- Whea work is to be done by daily ubordinate incharge shall prepare a ir.rsTer aames ofthe work-people; their attendap.ee. unt payable on this account. Monthly miisier ,osed after seven days' or as convenient. Igular sangs will bs doiie onl\' wiih ih. t'urers more than 58 ye&rs ofas.e shal! COT i'. egiilar gangs." XIHC—78 HWWI SSWt^i ^ST •^ww^, yfll'y'Ko, (s<diy^< ,,_,L<j.P-^t2S^/<fiO^-•^200 SII^T'q^T ( yil3»«i^) S^f W k-V'* ^naii^tWTO? 'ni^Id'^i MI*I?T![ ^ fs^l ^l^R ^••siRnsii^r 4. It is submitted tliat tiieil submittedthat by a notification- is no change in the Maiiual. He fiirth; i|aanual cannot be superseded. ,u9t' 5. Couisd fof pcdtioner yubjti 2044/2004), tlie Additional Sec(- F/13/11/S/2000 has issued dire|: should not be allowed to workl reference to the above letter, the| employees vide its letter dated }!• per Annexure P-3 that the efflplcjy 55 years are l'. Chokidai- (2) Civil (5) Mali (6) Khalasi (7) G4i it was made clear that the ordei) daily wag? employees aiid they| 6. Counsel fer petitioner submittec] ori\a decyion in Union oflndia ^ T il^tiu.ited fhat ihe as per annesur,; P-2 (W.P: Nu. l~etar.' vide letter dated 9-3-2000 bearing 110. ;|;tion tliat tlie daily wage employees/labours on attaining more fhan 55 years of age. In Goveniinent has clarified the category ofthe ^-7-2000 bearingno. F/13/11/31/8a/2000 as vees who should not be allovved to work after L|lboui- (unskilled), (3) Helper (uiiskilled), (4) (ngman and (8) Process Surveyor. In fhe letter, 1 under reference will not be applied on other may be kept in service till 60 •) ears of age. that it is discrimination. He-placed reliaiice [nd another -v- Inteniational Trading Co. Ltd. and'another reported in 2003 (51 1 '• Titaghur Paper Mills reported i hearing; the decision of Hieli C^ Madhva Pradesh and otliers -v- 1 SCC 437 and State bfOrissa and others -^-- 1 -^IK 1985 SC 1293. Durmg the Course of urt ofM.P. in W.P.No. 3200/2003 (State of Smt. Bliae\vati Bai and another) dated 23-3- 2003 vvas alsobrouslit to the not| 6. Counsel for petitioner fi] issued another direction vide let] issued'directions that the orderi .ce ofthis Court. '• irther submitted fhatJ the State Govenunent £T dated .17-4-2000- as per Amiexure P-4 and directing retirement of employees of Waler lSR^%^^^i^^^'^ XI-HC—78 'S's^ '<ii<4itf<i, ®Til'y'is,(qciiyy |L>,P- l387/<goo^_ *ii*«ni<h*<ict»"w' ' " '""""""""^^ 200 sn^Tl 'q^i' (yl^^yl) c' 3ti^r w Rt-ti* ^V 3Ti^?T (h^li^n ¥<<n<tT< tlf^(t •aif^l tb!<ricFQ'1 ^wv^^ fs^t ^fa<^R ^sifinsn^ii Resources Department attainm^ submitted tliat Department has submittsd thaf they have been 2000 (Annexure F-2) and subs| 2000 have not been considered. 7. Leamed Dv. Advocate O -sdeciSiontakBn bytheState on t, /31/2004 whereby the age in ffl as 60 years. The letterdated 16-; tlie age of 55 years, ai'e caiicelled. He fanlicr not been fair in removiiig flie employees. I-Ie removed pursuaiit to notification dated 9-3- ;quent notriication dated 17-4-2000 aiid 3-7- rhere is not a'vvhisper in the order. reneral brought to the notice of the Court the 6-8-2004 vide letter bearing 110. F 14-53/ WT. e Water Resources Department has been kepi ?-2004 is quoted below:- /l?N--fto -^T-T • qt3ft *^iR^i/^i^r ^ ^ciT -ys^^3^^j TOerirl ^^Rl^-3W xll^T, tT.?. ^ 'EIwT'T 'WT,- 2000,1?-TI^ 09.03. ! vj4<lcffl T? I ^r ^T ?pe ^, fSrarr ^ST ,%n^f^T.'^ f^ srfs W ^OTiTPft f.WW. T, 13^f ^'^1^ felFT/^lpty, ^3 -41/31/ ML / 2000. ufKTT mT''gw?T Tis^ Wft •5ifW ^IN'lRtft W ^i^t"4<i;55^^ ^ sng n ,^%T ^f ^r 3rqrn?R .'^ f^ tPw ^RR '^i7ft cb4^iR'yi fe sng ^RT MRd '^f 'snft t i //^f^r 'Ept ^T(T. ^: 'wi ^ wmi t'pff? ^ Hul^Sl '?q.'^ft .1 i ^ 3TMR ^ . cpH ; ^T ~^ ? i-fl Srftw ^ 'q^T ^^45 ^INlRct/ Wq ? ^Rof ^Fr^^ift^ ;c^fcKi4icj^r 55 ^ :?^-^;Ttrrzi-^t^R; ^^:l^.^q^^m^,^^tf^.^^^ %';?. '"' XI-HC—78 3iii?i^i Ri-fii* ^K 'fll^ifi sh4 (---" P^a^/- NWWI (hHiqi ^s?''^l<<l<>1'4,^fliy'l<o, Rlwi'My ; t,!.^- I'SS.7/'?^2- '{{^/ WI. 200 an^?l Tra^T (1pf3^ti) p«ti<fl<ti^a <HT^ 'TM '?n3T?f ^RT fltt'cir'<ili'<i'n vr?f ^w T^IFT ^i sngi v54'!|ctfllT|t1l»i WWW 'ff^\ 'ci'rtRif .3CTTT cRl^ •|" - 8. Counsel for the petitioner State Govemment dated 16-8-200 last para of the above order,th4 Public Works Department, tfae a^i was eariier and after taking 4 inmiediately. Tlie contention is decision and in spite ofthe 9. Inviewoftheorderdated taken steps and orders are orders be passed in accordaace •v| directed that till orders are 10. Subject to directions disposed 6f. Consequently all t^ie disposed of. . : 11. AcopyoftliisCourtbepia<( decisioji.they ^RPri^)^^ ''TW^ff ^t 'feT^ ^^.K. ^sifwsn^i TR T5W WT ? TcR ^frqT 60 '3^ q^cRT ^t ^ | SHT: T^ ^r -i^ *ijcii$i ^- ?fRFr ?pr submitted fliat inspite oftliis decision ofthe '4, the department has tiot taken any step, In State Govemment has decided that in tiie ;e of superannuation be kept 60 years as it teps,. the State Govemment be infonned that now the State Goveniment has taken are not implementing the same. ^6-8-2004, the Departtneiit ought to have sd'to tie'passed by the Department. Let the ?ith the order dated 16-8-2004. It is fai-tfier |th&petitioriers be-allowed to c_ontmue. |bservations made above, the petitions stand pending. M.W.Ps, and I.As. also stand passed,^th&petit] tlie ed in all tlie connected matters. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge