my @ W HéGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition is; No. 842 of 2008 Petitioners 1) Jageshwar Prasad, son of Shri Babulai Patei, aged about 48 years, working as Gangman, Pubtic Wcrks Department, Sub DMsion — dated Bhatgaon, 1—3—78‘ Dist. Raipur (CG) (appointment aprder 2) Dashrath Lal aged abcut 47 years, scn of Shri Dular Sai Sahu; working as Gangman, Public Worka Department Sub Dévisicn Bhat’gaon, Disit. Raipur (CG appointment arder dated ’M‘ 79. Versus Resgondents 1) Siate of Chha‘rtisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Pubrie Works, Dau Kaiyan Singh 2) Sub Divisional Officer, Pubiic Works Separfmeni, Sub Division Bhatgacn, Biiaigarh, Dist. Raigarh. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) (Writ Petition under Anicie 225 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hcn’bie Mr. $aiish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri Vinod Tekam: counse! forthe petitioners. Smt. Binu Sharma, Pane! Lawyer for the Siater GRAL OREEn (Passed on 11m Februaryg ZGOB) Learned counsel appeéring for the petiiioners submite that the petitioners, who were appointed on $34973 and 1-1-79 as permanent Gangman in ine Pubiic Works Department, Sub Division Bha‘tgaon; Dist Raipur, and have worked for more than 25 years as Gangman, seek a reiief that the petitionere being permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyarn, 1967 (for short ‘the Act, 1967‘) read with Fundamental Ruie 56. ) 2} According to )earned counsei for the petitioners, the petitioners attained the status of permanent empioyees, as defined under Ruie 2(a) of the Ch’nattisgarh (Workc’narged and Contingency Paid Empioyeee) Pension Rules, 1979‘ framed under Articie 309 of the Constitution of indie. After having attained the status of the oermanent empiovees, the petitioners would retire on attaining the age of 52 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. A a) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the case or" the petitioners is squareiy covered by the decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 108 of 2005 (Govind and others Vs. State of Chhaitisgam and Others) and other connected matters (2007 (2) CGLJ — 29) i 4) Learned counsei appearing for the State/‘respondents does not dispute the submissions made by iearned counsei appearing for the petitioners. 5) Acoordingiy, the petitioners, who are permanent Gangmen, are entitied to retire on attaining the age or o4 years in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingiy aiiowed, subiect to verification of facts of the case. No order asto costs. ”an Sd/— ,Satish K. Agnihotrir Judge