HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTRSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Peiition {S} Na. 2270 of 2008 Petitioners 1. Ram Sai Ram, aged about 53 years. son of $hri Laiu Ram, Gangman, R/o. viii. Gamhanya, PO Jashpur. Sisti. Jashpur (CG) (Et of appt-1 I5/1 980‘) 2. Ranthu Ram (Bode. aged abeut 54 years, sail _ ei' Shri Gopi Gode. Gangman, Rio. Viii Lora, PC Kastura', Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Dt of app! 31I12l1980) 3. Juga! Ram Rautiya. aged about 5? 'ears, sun of Shri Thir a, Gangman Rio. Viii Mahuatoii, Post Kandora, Distt, Jashpur {6(3) (Dt of appt—31l3/1 987} Mohna Ram Uraon, agad about 50 years‘ son 9f $hri Khakhaii Uraon, Gangman, R/c. Vili. Patkona. PO Sanna. Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Dt of appt 1/4l1931) 5. Sundara Ram, aged about 51 years, san of shri Boga, Gangman R/o. Vin Patkana, PO Sanna Diatt. Jashpur (CG) {Di of appi — 1.9.T981) Banbii Ram Uraon, aged abcut 4.7 years, son of Shri Chaitu Uraan, Rio. viii Chanda Depa, PO Sanna Distt. Jashpuf (CG) Dt 0f abut — 1.4.1951 7. Amrit Kujur. aged about 48 years, son of Taesu Kujur, Gangnian, Rla. vm. Chanda Depa, PO Sanna, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Dt. Qf appt-1/5/1. 961,) S. Tihiu Ram, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Tetangu Ram, Gangman R/o. Viiiage Chanda Deepa PC Sanna Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Di of appi — 1i4f1 981) Tilak Ram. aged about 52 years, son of Shri Tima Ram. Gangmaa R/o. Vii! Mahuatoii, Post — Kandora, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Dt cf appt —26!4/1 933 10. Gopnath Ram, aged about 52 years, sen of 'Shri Tetangu Ram, Gangman, RIG. Viii. Jamchuwan (Chhapaitoli) PO ~ Jamchuwan, Distt. Jaehpur (CG) (Dt of appt — 1/411 982) Piyo Ram, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Bogha Ram, Gangman Rjo. Vii! Lore, PO C achari, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (3t of appt -2D/03/1 983) 12. Chandana Ram, aged about 51 years, eon of Shri Kura Ram, Gangman, Rio. Vii! Loro, PO —— Chachri, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Di of appt -20:’3/1 983) h. (0. 11. 14. Jhaikunwar, aged about 45 3m 9f Shré Fagu Ram. Gangman, Rlo. V51! and Post Charaidand, Disk Jashpm (CG) (Di of appi — 31/3/1 986) Mohan. Ram Yadav, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Madhu Ram Yada‘vx Gangman. Rio. Vi}! and Post ,Ludeg. Désxt. Jashpur (CG) (D! of app! — 1M2x1983) Smt. sukhani Bai, aged about 55 yeafs. Dlof $hfi Manu Ram, Gangman. Rio. Viii Kunkuri (Bendar Bhadra) Distt. Jashpur {CG} {Dr of app: 6/8?) Easantu Ram. aged about 5O years, ma of shri Baisakhu Ram, Gangman, Ric. ‘v'm Kandora {Karamta‘i} D§stt Jashpur (CG) {Dt of' appt -9I87). mime Sai, aged abaut 45 years, son ef Shri Roop Sai, Gangman, R/c. WI. Madhupur, Bhadiya Darha. P.$. Bagbahar, Tah 'Patthalgaon Dkstt. Jashpur (CG) (Dt of appt —Si1 011 989) Ugan Ram, aged abeu! 49 years. son of Shri Sanaa Ram, Gangman, Ria. VIE Tambasingha, Post Bandarchuwan. Distt. Ja$hpur (CG} (Dt of app: ' 1!9l1§89} 15. 16. Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhatt§sgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Pubiic Works, Dau Katyan singh Bhawan, Raipur (0.8.) Chief Executive Engineer, Department cf Pubtic Worke, Division —~ Jashpur, Dtstt. Jashpur (CG) $ub Divisiona! Officer Public Works Department, Sub Division — Kunkurt. $ub Divtsionat Gfficer Public Werks Department, Sub Dtvision « Jashpur. Distt. Jashpur (CG) DisttJ Jashpur (C.G.) WRH' PETITOEP€ UNDER ARTtCLE 225‘0F THE C6NST§TUT§§N OF INWA H Singte Bench :Hon’bte Mr. Satish K. Agaihotri, J. 5hr; F. S. Khare, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Aick Bakshi, Gevt. Advocate for the respondents. r13“ ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 215i day of Aprii, 2008) I‘J is. With the consent of §eamed seunsei appearing for the pafties the matter is heard finaHy. The petitioners are worktng tn Pubtic Wmke Depanment. Learned connsel appeartng for the petttieners as welt as learned counset appeartng for the {espondents/state jetntty eubmit that the question of iaw, inveived in the present writ petitien, ie the same asto that 0f in Gevind at others ‘y’s. 5tate 0f C.G. & Othere { 2007 (2) C.G.L.J. 29}, r wherein it is heid that the petrnanent gahgmen are entitied ta be retired en et‘eining the age o.£ 6L ’} years, in accordance wt". Ha the provisions 0f the Chhattisgarh Shaekiya sevak {Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyarn. 1967. 3. Learned ceunsei appearing fer the respondents/State farther suhrnits that‘ii the case of the petitioners is on the same footinge, there is he reason to deny ék merh 4-the benefits availabre l I t0 Ha me permanent gangmen. Aceerdingty, this writ petition is aiiowed in terms ct the order passed in the case of Govind & others {supra}. subject to verification of the fact asie whether the petitioners have acquire Ha me sta.us 4- or‘ permanent /’r ,. 7 ,7,7 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thekur I n.“ gangmen. Ne order asto costs. Sd/— WM