HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ PetWon (Sl No. 4964 0^2008 Petitioners 1) Ganesh Ram Yadav, S/o. Horif YacSav, ag^j about 52 y^ire, working as Permaneit Gangman, Pubfio Worte Department, Sub- DMsion Pamgarh, District Janjgir-ChaTTipa (CG). (Appointment on 1977) 2) Badri Sahu, S/o. Ramji, s©edabout 51 years, working as Permanent Gangman, Public Worte Department, Sub Division, Pamgarh, DEstrict Janjgir-Cham^ (CG). (Appointment intheyear1977) 3) Sukhram, S/o. Khulu Singh, aged about 50 yeare, working as Permanent Gangman, PtA)!!c Works Department, Sub-Division Pamgarh, Distriet Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Appointment on 1977) 4) Resham Bai, D/o. Pancharam, ageel abcajt 48 yeare, working as pennanent Gangman, Pubtie Works Department, Sub-Divisio . Pamgarti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). (appointment on 1977) 5) Jawahar Nai, S/o. Bahsriur, aged about 50 years, working as permanent Gar^man, Pubtte Works Department, Sub-Division Pamgarh, Di^rict Janjgir-Champa (03). (Appointment inthe year 1977) 6) Smt. Amrik Bai, D/o. Sadhu Ram, eged about 53 years, working as permanent Gangman, Publio Works Department, Sub - Division, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Channpa (CG). (Appointment on 1977) 7) Smt. Purain Bai, D./o. Sfctar Sjngh, a^ed about 52 yeara, working as permanent Gangman, Pubiic Works Department, Sub-DMsion Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Appointment in the year 1977) 8) Agar Singh, SfQ. Kesar Singh, aged about 54 years, worRing as Permanent Gangman, Putoftc Works Department, Sub-DMsion :Pam9aFh,. Distriot Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Appointment in the year 1977) 9) Hemlat Yadav, S/o. Dujeram, aged about S3 yeare, WQrking as permanent Gar^man, Ribtic- Works Department, Sub-Division Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CQ). (Appoirtment in the year 1-981) 14) 15) 16) 17) - ^- - 10) Jav^ihar Lal Badhai, S/o. Kodui^m, agect abaA 61 yeare, working as permanent Gangnrtan, Public Works Department, Sub-Divtsion Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (03). (Appointment on 1977) 11) Hariram Sahu, S/o. Late Faturswn Sahu, aged about 54 years, working as permanent Gangman, Pubiic Worte Departm»!t, Stto- Division Pamgarh, Distriot Jan^ir-Cham^ (CO). 12) Mehtarin Bai, D/o. Banwati Kewat, aged atout 46 years, working as ^rmanent Gangman^ Pubtio WoFks Oepartment, Sub-DMsion Pamgarh, Distriot JanjgirOhampa (CG). 13) Amarnath, S/o. Runu aged about 57 years, working as permanent Gangman, Public Works Department, Sub-Dh/ision, Pamgarh, District Janjgsr-Champa (CX3). (Appointment order dated 1981) Upasa Bai, D/o. Kartik Ram, aged about 55 yeare, swrking as pennanent Gangman, Pubiio Works Department, Sub-Division Pamg^rh, District Janjgir-Champa (GG). (AF^ointment on 1981) Dhansai Yadav, S/o. Dals^i, aged abGut §8 yeare, working as permanent Gangman, Pubiic Works Department, Sub-Division Pamgafh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Appoirrtment on 1981) Budharam, S/o. Birtehh Ram, aged abovt 81 yeare, worior^ as permanent Gangman, Public Works Department, Sub-Division Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) (Appointment on 1973) Firat Ram, S/o. Ouha, aged about 51 yeacs, worRing as permanent Gangman, Public Works Department. Sub-DMsion Janjgir, DistricE Janjgir- Champa (CG). (Appointment on 1978) Versus ResDondents 1) State crf Chhattia©arh,throi^i t he Seoretary, Department of Rjbtic Works, D.K.S. Biawan, Raipur (CG). - J 2) The Sub-Divisionat Officer, Publto Works Department, Sub-Dh^sion Pamgarh, Dtstrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). 3) The Sub-divtsional Officer, Publjc Wori<s Department, Sub-Dsvision Janjgir, DNrtet Janjgir- Champa (CX3). -3- (Writ Petition under Article 226G27 of the Constitutton of India) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnfhotri, J. Presenfc Shri F.S. Khare, counset for the petittoners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the Stat®. ORALORDER (Passed on 2.4-2008) With consent of tearned counset appearing for both tie parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2) Learned counset appearing for the petttioners submite that the (^titioneFS were appointed as permanent Gangmen. The petitioners are entitted to the benefits flowing from the judgment and order passed in ©ovlnd& oflwrs V$< State of C.G. & others (2007 (2) CGLJ 29). The petitioners are being denied the benefrts. 3) Learned counset appearing for the respondents/Qtate submits that the petitioners cannot claim any other benefits like reguiartzation. However, the petitioners, if stanci on ie same footing, areentitted to the benefits, in acoordanoe vwth judgment and order dat^ 4-1 -2007 passed in Govind & othere (supra). 4) Accordingly, this writ F®titionis atlowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Govind & others (supra), subjectto veriTication of the fact asto whether the petitioners have aoquired the ^atus of permanent gangmen. No orcler as to costs. Thakir Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge