@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAH-l: BILASPUR Wgit Petition {Si No.4238 of 2Q08 Petitioner $ava;o Ra, Djruv. Aged about 59 years, S/o. Bhaiya ram Gond, Met. offi- Sub Division Magarlod, Rfo. Bhandari, Rajim District Raipur (CG). Versxg 1) The sate of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Water Resources Depariment, ‘ Resggndenis D.K.S. Bhawan. Mantralaya, (CG). 2) I The Executive Engineer, Jal Sansadhan Sambhag, Dhamtari. Disit. Dhemtari (CG). 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Sansedhen sub Division, Code No. 841 Dhamtari (CG). (Writ Petitien under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) se: Hoh’bre Mr. satish K._ Agnihotn', J. _._ ... m. .__..._‘t...,._._...,_v,. t mm . ,_w mew. $hn' JA. Lohani Magariod, _.._~_ Present: counsel for the petitioner. _ ................................e Smt. Sunita Jain. Pane: Lawyer forms sate. ’ ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4‘“ day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that me petitioner, who was employed as permanent Gangman, on 1104-1987 in the Water Works Department, Sub Division Magariod,’ Code No. 841 Dhamiari (CG), seeks a relief that the petitioner being permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaski -Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short, “the Act, 1967”) read with Fundamental Rule 56. ya Sevak (Adhivarsiiiki According to teamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short, “the Rules 1979”), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution i’ 7 f J“ of India. After having attained the status of the permanent empioyee the petitioner woule retire on attaining the age of S2 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that case of the petitioner is squareiy covered by the decrsron of this Court passed on 4t“ January, 2007 In Writ Petition (S) No 454 of 2005 (Ram Prasad Yadav and others Vs State of Chhattrsgarh & others) and other connected matters. 4) Learned counsel appearino for the respondents/State submits that in absence of reievant documents Had by the petitioner rt Is drifrcuit to estabiish 5) Accordingly, irberly is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authorities in the light of judgment and order passed in the matter of Ram Prasad Yadav (supra). 6) The petition is accordingiy disposed of. /// ‘ / SdAgmhou-t I— S tls K Jut‘ge