IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ('C.G.) WRIT PETITION CS) NO.&l0! _ OF 2007 PETITIONER <r\ y Ramlal Yadav Son of Shiv Prasad Yadav, aged about 60 years, Resident of Village Loharpathra, Post Korra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ^' VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, ^J-. .(\^\'^v-'": Mahanadi Shirsha Jal Prabandh, :fi^%^ ^^'^•^,^A- ^"-.""^~'.~'".~"" 1" .'.'"""""' '°^/ V..--:"6"'S,^!K. ...-• Sub Division No.l Rudri, District <3*l**T'/ Ptl-i-irv^+--t-i f f~> r^ \ .•*** RESPONDENTS ^•^^swl: ss«^e Dhamtari (C.G.). ,&.-••" 1^' &®ITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L; ^nl^ ^o ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR W.P. (81 No.6101/2007 PETITIONER RESPOMDBNTS Ramlal Yadav, Son of Shiv Prasad Yadav, aged about 60 years, Resident of ViUage Loliarpafbra, Post Karra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ycrsus 1. State of CUiattisgarh, Thiough: The Secrctary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahanadi Shirsha <Jal Prabaadh, Sub Division No.l Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION X3JDERAR.TICLE 226 OF THB COHSTITUTION OF INDIA Appeaa'ance: Shri P.P. Sahu, Counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate aad Deputy Advocate General with Shri A.S. Kachliwaha, Govt. Advocate for ffae State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (31.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Learaed counsel for the petitioner subniits that a permanent Gaog-man is to be retired at fhe age of 62 years ia accoidance wifh fhe Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhwarshiki-Ayu) Adhtrayam 1967 icad wifh FundaDiental Rules, 56. He also submits that the poiat raised has been decided by this Court iu batch ofmattera i.e. W.P. No. 108/2005 aad many ofher connected matters on 04.01.2007, reported ia 2007 f21 C.GJ,.J. 29 fGovmd & Others vs. State ofC.G. and others) aud this matter is squarely covered by that decision, which may be disposed ofon fhe same terms. Learued counsel for the State fairly agrees fhat fhis inatter is covered by the said decision. However, he submits that ia some inatters fhe State has filed writ appeals. W.P.(S)No.6I01/2007 ^\ Rao/ Shyna Unless soine interim order is passed, merety on accoiint of filing of the writ appeal, hearing of this writ petition cannot be kept ia abeyaace, when the matter is squarely covered by fhe said judgmeat. In the result, ftiis petition is aHowcd. It is disposed of ia terms of the order dated 04.01.2007 passed in W.P. No. 108/2005 aud other coimected inattera. No order as to cost. Sdt- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge »-