HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 122 of 2008 Petitiong Shriram, Sic. Shri Santu Ram, aged about 59 years, Rio. Vinage Mungadih, Post Baksahi, Tahsil Pali, Distt. Korba (CG). Versus - 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Public Works Department, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Sub Divisional Ofticer, Sub Divisional No.1, Public Works Department (FWD) Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG). espondent Rs (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vinod Tekam, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ January, 2008) 1) By this petition, teamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was employed on 8-8-1974 as permanent Gangman in the Public Works Department, District Korba, and has worked for more than 25 years as Gangman, seeks a relief that the petitioner oeing permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki— Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short, "the Act, 1967“) read with Fundamentat Rule 56. 2) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid ’ Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short, “the Rules 1979"), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of india. After having attained the :4» x, um m)‘f/ “ status of the permanent empioyee the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4‘“ January, 200? in Writ Petitien (S) No. 108!2005 (Govind & others Vs. State of C.G. and others) and other connected matters, 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondentsiState does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5) Accordingly, the petitioner, who is a permanent Gangman, is entitled to retire on armining the age of 62 years, in accordance with the Aet’ 1967‘ The petitim i5 a°c°rdingiy a'iowed, subject to verification of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihot‘ri‘ Judge the facts. No order as to costs. x ;;4 av a ,_ )/45 ‘ V