WriiPe ‘$25of2008 Petitioners 1 . Krishna Singh, aged about 52 yars. son of Shri Kajru Singh, working as Gangman, Public Werks Department (B&R) Sub Division - Kunkuri. Distt. Jashpur (0.6.) Appointed on 1.8.80 2. Sukhdeo Ram. aged about 55 years, son of Shri Lataram. working as Gangman. Public Works Department (B&R) Sub Division — Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Appointed on 1.8.80 3. Jagamath Ram, aged about 54 years. son of Shri Matan Ram working as Gangman, Public Works Department (38R) Sub Division — Kunkuri. Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Appointed on 31 5.80 4. Laiku Ram. aged about 49 years, son of Shri Deman Ram. working as Gangman. Public Works Department (B&R) Sub Division- Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Appointed on 1.8.80 5. Chandan Ram Naik, son of Late Hanaku ram, aged about 55 years. working as Gangman. Public Works Department (38R) Sub Division — Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (6.6.) Appointed on 1.8.80 6. Mukund Ram. son of Late Puni Charon Ram. aged about 55 years. working as Gangman, Public Works Department“ (B&R) Sub Division - Kunkuri. Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Appointed on 11.2.79 7. Johan Ram, aged about 52 years, son of Shri Mani Ram, working as Gangman, Pubiic Works Department (B&R) sub Division — Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Appointed on 11.2.79 a Versus Respondents 1. State of cnnattisgarh, through the 3ecretary, Department of Public Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Engineer, Department of Public Works, Division - Jashpur. Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department. Sub Division — Kunkuri. DisttJ Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITOIN UNDERARTmLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDiA é, h .,s Single Bench .: Hon'b!e Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri F. S. Khare. Advocate for the petitioner. Shfi U. N. S. Dec. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 0&L ORDER (Passed on this a!" day of February, 2008) A. Learned counser appearing for the petitioners as weii as ieamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State joiniiy submit that the facts Learned counsei appearing for the respondents/State funher submits that if the case of the petitioners is on the same footings. there is no reason to deny them the benefits available to the permanent gangmeng '1 Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Govind 8. others (supra). subject to veritication of the fact aste whether the petitioners have acquired the status of permanent we Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri! Judge gangmen. No order asto costs. Thakur K’ii x -' /wy