\\ Damat Ram Diksena, Sio. Shri Nathu Ram Diksena, agd abt 57 years R/o. ViHage Muadih, Post Baksahi. Tahsil Pa!i DistL Kama (CG). Versus 1} State of Chhattisgarh! through Secretary Publi Werks Depament, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Sub Divisional No.1, Pubiic Work Depanmen FWD) Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG); (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constituion of indie) t SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: $hri Vinod Tekam, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ January, 2008) 1) By this petition, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was employed on 1-4-1972 as permanent Gangman in the Public Works Department, District Korba, and has worked for more than 25 years as Gangman, seeks a relief that the petitioner being permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki- - Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short, “the Act, 1967”) read with Fundamental Rule 56. 2) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent empioyee, as defined under /- Rule 2 (c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Ruies, 1979 (for short, “the. Rules 1979”), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the x ;,4 I )r4. " HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition ($) No. 121 of 2003 Petitioner e ou , ng , Respondents c rt 2) s t ( status of the permanent employee the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that . case of the petitioner is squareiy covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4‘“ January, 2097 in Writ Petition (S) Ne. 108/2005 (Govind & . others Vs. State of C.G. and others) and other connected matters, 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondentslState does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. j;ar ’ $ Accordingly, the petitioner, who is a permanent Gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years, in accordance with the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed, subject to verification of the facts. No order as to costs. ‘ 1Satish K.Agnihotri