gg HIGH CGURT GF {ZHHAri‘ri‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRI’l‘ PEJTITION (S) N0. 117 {)f Zimg : Charan Singh S/0 Shm' Damadar, aged about ‘PETI’HGNER $8 years, R/o. Vi§age Mmigadih, Post Baksahi, Tahsil Pali, Distt. Katha (06.) VERSUS State 9f {Ilhhamsgmh Thmugh $ecretaryr‘ i’ubiic Works Dgparimmi, Mana'alayag DKS. Bhawm, Raipur (C.G.) Sub Divisional GEEcer, Sub D§viSionai No. 1, 13u'blic Works Depaatmem, (FWD) Kafghora, Disti. Korba (CG) RESPOND§ENTS )b WRIT PE'I‘ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS’I‘ITUTION OF iNDlé SB: Htm’ble Shri Sat§sh K. Agnmetrg J. l’resem: Shri Vinod Tekam Advocate forthe gfetitioner Shri Aiay Dwiveéi: Fame} Lawyer for the Staielres‘poiidanms. ‘ ORAL ORDER {E‘agsed (mi’il‘tm day of Kn‘tmry, 2008) 1. By this petition. iieameii counsel appearing for the peiitiomer submim ihai tho petitioner was employed on 27.961979 as permanent Gaggman in the Pubh'c Works Depamnent, Katghora‘ Distxict Korba, who has Worked for more than 25 years a3 Gangman seeks a feiief that. fho petitions; being permanent gangman be retired at the age of62 years in accordance with the Chhzmisgarh Shashkiya. Sev'ak (Adhivarshiki—Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1%7 {for short *£he Act, 1967’) read with Fundamental Rule (for Sheri ‘F.R.’) 56. 2. Accoroing to learned eounse] for the petiiiooer, the petitiomer atminea ilae eiatus of permament employee? as defmed under Rule 2{c) of the Chhattisgaxh {Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) ?ension RuleS, 1979 (for short ‘the Rules, 1.979), framed umier Article 3G9 of the Coastitution of lndla. Alier having attained the status of the permanent 1Y3 “ M \ " \ employee, the petimmer wouid rétixe 0n aimining the age of 62 yams or: superannuation under the provisions ofihe Am, 1967. Learned courisel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the: degision ofihis Couri paosed on 4th January: 2007 m W.P. No. 108/2005 (Govind Vs. Siato of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other oonnocted waters. Learned couxzsel appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the pemiozaer. Accordmgly, the petitioner, who is a permanem gangmm is entitkzd to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the Act, 1967‘, The peiition is accordingly ailowed5 subject {o verification of the facts. No order as to costs. Sd/- _ Satish K. Agnihotri 1‘ ‘ Judge I V