S§r§g¥ag “wk $ ‘ G k/ 5 WRIT PETITION No. érEBGZ OF 2004 /‘Smt. Thagia bai Aged about 56 years. PETITIONER: bx U\ VERSUS I/ 1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaly , Pubh'c Works Deptt. Mantralaya, D.K. Raipur (C.G.) // 2. Sub~Divisional Officer Kodar Head Work Sub-Division Mahasamund. Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS: gx W/O Shri Sukalu Ram Teh. Vinage— Mahasamund, Bhoring V J Q¥ . Distt. Mahasamund. (C.G.) I cx wgx S .Bhawan, N IN THE HIGH COURT OF' CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i§aim€wggg€wa@y%§$$§ £LS¥mhH30aJ ¥Jn Wm 2m mam (Waam mww w 351% iamm; mawz§wm 31iaE12e05 Shri Sunil Ottwani, coujlssl for thé petitioner. Shu' Akhil Agrawal, P.LV for th€ State, Heard. The pEtitioner by tbs gmstant pstition has challsngsd tbs order of Annexurs P—l by wh ch tha ps‘titioner was r€mcV€d from serviC6 with effect emu ‘30, 11/2003 on vthe ground that the petitioner had already attainad. the age of ylperannuation ie‘ 55 years. Leaiaed couneel foy t petitioner submits that The State had subsequently taken the ecision dated 16/08/2004 whereby The age of Superannuation in he Water Resources Department ha been enhanced to 60 years. The above order has been filed as Annexure P—6. Leained coma e1 for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated gang n were directed by this Court to be reinstated and passed suitabl , order inaccordance with the order dated 16/08/2004 in their ca es also. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not attained ”£1 age of 6O years as per policy Vide Annexure P-6 even then tle petitioner has been retired on 30/ 11/2003. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed that the State Government has en anced the age of superannuation to 60 vears vide cider Annexure —6. I have heard learned cot nsel for the paities. GLI‘RJ FS/350—l2/2000 50,000 s e 1 / o 3E1 ma, Wag Wit LJ‘Q:$M9.:.Q3Q2. mmW§ {dam 2m y 6 r §Vi¢ , 1/ V ?7‘ Wf g J7 ‘