^— ^ ' fe';^ ^... i k^r T.O.g ^.<5--' V'Sa-W- ws^ giyr^j g BPMf BI;N vff^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. ^ 7-^ /2005 ^ Dashrath Ram Kewat, S/o Shri Sahaguram Kewat, Aged about 51 years, R/o Village - Andhewada, Post Office Michgaon, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through-fhe Secretary, Public Works Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer 1. 2. .co^ ^%tt^ Public Works Department, Andhawada, District - Bhanupratapur (C.G.) ^to l*' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 z^ ^T^f^pT. "S^FT?, fe^ray 41 311^1^1 I^W^H^T '^RN'^ffi^ t __.tU...&..-...5.2: ^^WTI' ^We^ lo-^ ^, '209 3?T^T ^CTWHfeci 5-12-2005 Slm .^rioop Majumdar, Counsej Slm Sandeep Dubey, Govl. Ad^ Heard. Counsel for the petitioner su4mts that the matter relates to gang man. H€ farther subimts' that in. batoh •of casejs; mdadmg' W.P. INo. • 1722/2003 (^/tohatilal Dadsena and others -v- State of CMi^ttisgarh and others), orders have been passed ^A on 15m Septembsr 2005. ITiis fact is not in a position to he has not.given the relie-f as thsre U beenfiled. In the order dated 15-9-2005 p| the Court has held as under:" "3.,..............Purport of thej appears fi:om the pemsal of t^ petitioners that the gang men ^'j^fci^i'l "RTR^Tf °?f^^!" Tf^SH ^ ^ri^FT '33^? for the petitioner. .fortheState. ispute tUs faot. Shri. Majumdar submi.te that.t|.e petitioner approached to the authorities biit no court order. Accordingly tiiis petition has .ssed in W.P. No. 1722/2003 mbateh ofcases, order is quite dear and unabmibyous as it ? order as well as from the contentioiis of the ho have not completed the age of 60 yeas^ as on 30-03'B2005, they wffl be ajlowed to continue tifl they aftam thc age of60 yea.rs. It m 'mfoniied by the leatiied counsel for the petitioners(s) that some of the gang men, who have alreaqly re&ed on completion of 30 years of sen/ice, have been paid retiral benefit^ i.e. gratuity osily; TUs will be unfair, ifthe petitioners, who have retii'ed tj sendce, though they have stiU! not g^ven benefit of order date(j 4. For the reasons stated tiie gang men, who had retirec| efbre 30-03-2005 on coxifipletion of 30 years of some years to go before 60 years of age, are . 30-03-2005. sbove. the re^pondents are dii'ected to allow aH on completion of 30 years of sen'ice but have [Tft^'^f^ XI-HC-22 3T?^[^T f^TN'^Tii^ ^•RN"^y -t- ^ ^ ^ ^ <s •j$c Y ^^i ^"rai^T, '^N7Ts, f^i7??y -^.2: ^re^ii^w^ 3?T^T ^W ^.^.^......S.^.2./J.o •/"^ '^^" ^n^T ^cTTW ^f^cT not attained the age of 60 years:, attain the age of 60 years^ subj^ saven to them. (5) In some of the petitions, oftheir sendces as Gang man. L( the said prayer be disiiussed as n( granted to the petitioners to appropriate fomm, if necessaty. regularization are dismiased as ri| raise the dispute seetdng redress^ before the appropriate foiiim. (6) In \dew of the foregoini mdicated above. The respondenj order within a period of tvvo ofthis order. No order as to cost$i to rejom the sendces and continue till they |ct to depositing the retu'al benefits» if any, (he petitioners ha\7e prayed for regularization |amed counsel for the petitioners subimt that |t pressed at present. Howeven the Uberty be r4ise the issue of regularization before the j Tne petitions witli regard to the prayer of jot pressed vvith libeity to the petitioners to of the relief of reguiarization, if necessaty, This petition ako stands aUowed| order passed in W.P. 175S/2003. Tlie re| the orders witlim a period of t^ro monttA ofthis order. M.W.P. No. 4554/2005 stands cfisposed of C.c. aspernxles. ^Rf^fN ^TR^f ^ ft^ T$^r^R ^T 3if^R 3??^T |, the petitions stand aUowed to the extent ^s are fuither directed to comply vvith this mo|iths from the date of receipfcconmiumcation to the extent mdicated abow to the extent of pondents are fui'ther dii'ected to comply ^ith from the date of coimnuriication/procluotion. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge • [Tft^ ^4