^^^^saes. :..l-s c, HISHGOURT OFCHHATriSGARH: BSLASPUR Res&ondente Sukaria Bai Yadav, D/o. Shri Jhaglu Yadav, Age about 64 years, occupation Reja, R/o. Near Mahila Polytechnio Coltege, Kundara Para, Baron Bajar, Distt.Raipur,(CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Principal Secretary P.W.D. Department Mantrataya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(CG). 2) Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Department, Division No.1, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3) Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Department, Sub Dmsion No.1, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 228 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Wi. Satish K. Agnihotr!, J. Present Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner, Shri AiokBakshi.Govt. Advocate fortheState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27th Fetoruary, 2008) The petitioner, while v;orkjng in work charged establishment in regutar pay scale, retired from seri/ices on attaining the age of superannuation v/ith effsct from ^ 28-02-2005 (Annexure P/1-A). The petitioner is entltted to grant of pension as the peti^pner has completed ten years service in regular pay scale In work oharged . establishment. The Identteal issue came up forconsideration in Writ Petition No.4135 of 2004 (M.A.,Hakim Vs. State of M.P: (Now C.G.) and others), which was decided by this Court on 28-8-2006, wherein it was held that "the contention of ths respondents that the petitioner has npt oompteted ten yeare of service as regular emp!oyee is not supported by any Rule or cireuiar, so as to disqualify work charged employee from grant of of pension. From bare reading of the provisions of law, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to pension, as admissible, in accordance with the aforesaid Pension Ru!e 1979". A Specia! Leave Petition was filed tsy the respondents in the Supreme Court against the said judgment and order dated 28-8-2006 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, a review petition was filed whioh was ateo dismissed. i-... -2- Y: 2) Shri Alok Bakshi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State would also submit tbat the faots and issue involved in this oase are squarely covered bythe decision ofthls Court in M.A. Hakim's oase (supra). Thus, this petition can be disposed of in the same teFms. 3) For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is accordtngly allowed in the same terms i.e., the admissible pension shall be released within a period of two months from today, as the petitioner has retired long backfron-i serotee on 28-2-2005, immediatelyafter his regularization. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge <.'_*