V iB'i°EIsi-iUt ^ H€^:&»a"> s^sm" "^ •;s-'" c^ 1 sy> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CCHHATnSGARH^ WRIT PETITION fSI N0. ^ S^$' QF 2007 '*••! PETITIONER ^^.. ['^••^^ '^Q.^ ..-••'^-y:u^' ^••^^^ Smt. Rohdasin Bai Wife of Shri ^ Lakhan Sahu, aged about 60 ..'•"' years, Resident of Village and post Puri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 2. The Executive Engineer, Water Management Division Rudri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). ,3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Management Sub Division No.l Rudri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION O F INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION ETC. r ^& HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNfHOTRi. J. PetiSioner WRIT PETITiON (S.l N0.985 OF 2007 Smt. Rohdasin Bai versus ResDondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. P.P.Sahu, counsei for the petitioner. Ms. Sunte Jain, Pane! La\lvyer for tte Stete/respondsnts. (Passed on 20th Day of February, 2007) Learned counsei appearing for the peUtioner submits that the petitioner, who was employed on 1-7-1983 as daily wage labour in the establishment of respondents No.2 and 3, seeks a relief that the petitioner, being pennanent gangman, be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhlvarehiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short the Act, 1967") read writh Fundamental Rute 56. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent emptoyee, as defined under Rute 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Empioyees) Pension Rules, 1979, framed under Articte 309 of the Constitutlon of India. After having aflained Uie status of the permanent r \ f2J^ empioyee, the petitioner wouid retire on attainting the age of 62 years on suoerannualion undertfte Drovisions ofthe Act. 1967. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner Is squarely covered by the deeision of this Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in Wrt Petition No.108 of 2005 (Govind vs. Stefe of ChhaWsgaiti and offiiers) and other connected matters. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondente does not dispute ttie submisslons made by learned counsel appearing for the oetitioner. 5. The respondents are at liberty to consider ie facts of ttie case as to whether the petitioner has completed 15 years of serv'ice as gangman. In the event, it is found that the petitioner has completedlS years of service, the case shai! be governed by the decision of this Court in the matter of Govind vs. State of C^shatSsgarh and ofters (supra). 6. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is permanent gangman, is entltied to retire on attaining the aae of 62 years in accordance with'the provisions ofthe Act, 1967. 7. Thus, the writ petition is aliowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gt^i r