(^^Y- iaN*"®» .0»..:©I«»WBS®aa»4 ^BiftiiSW IWW.-aBWBEQN-'S®. '^S^Wi'f'b,0»N BSTaPlONBK Smfet Sonmafe Baj,; W3^e o£ fagwa, age«a about 50 yearsy residenfe e< vilXaga :- Bbafeba Pasa, Tumgaony P.S» { Tvasgaovff Tahsi.1 & Bistrj;efe » Mahasamand, ( C8 ). %.»..& S: IB. i^^^SS^ IffiSBONBBNSB 8 /-l* Sfeatse of ebhafcfeisgaEb fehiough s 21ae Seersfeaxar. XrrigafciQn aepaietmenti, WateE Resourees; B^C.S. Bbawariy Raipu^ <K ^ -^y ^^'c^"" ^,^'osc-^ &»fft' ^^ riil1^" "\ .--,v'\ .;^i3fc/ 2"? Ttaa Engineer Xn efaie&^ lErlgafeion BeparSmea^, Raipur Disferlcfe 4 ,RaipuE ( G 0 )t .3. Th» Chlaf BngiisaeE, K&dar - PEOjae^ _Raipaa?¥ DiateiEiefi } Raipue ( C S ) |4f tbe Bsiecufcive BMgine^;, HQdaB PEejec*? BAvision a Mahasamurad, O.lstet » Maha- a saimad' ( G S )1? 5. Ttae Sub Bivisional Bngineer Kodae PTOJeefc, Hataasaauad Disfcfe : MahasanKuady <C Q ) 6. SfeaEe a£itadhara Pradeslt,, fehEBugh s The Ssceefeaxyy Wa^ar ResouBos BapaEfenieat, Vallabb BhawaB? Bbppal IW»i»fl®M^:B^aW^A^'XGI^.*S 6/227»^l-T»..l-WSS^a«I!E3W w-'-sssysA B®?ia »»i'--®»"SIB9'a®®N l? gaB* s».y.a»s...ofc"*he'aRis»laneaEs As mentioned abova in titae causa feitla? HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISOARH : BULASPUR Sjnate Bench: Satish KAnnihotri. J.O WRIT PETITION No. 3607 of 2003 Smt Sonmat Bai Vs. State of ChhatBsgarh and othere WRIT PETITION No. 978 ofa)04 Paras Ram @ Bhulu Ram Sahu Vs. State ofChhaUisgarh andrthers WRIT PETFTKWI No. 399 of 2008 BudhuRamKewat vs- \. ' State <rf ChhatUsgarh andothws WRIT PEmiCTI No. 398 <^ M05 Dayaram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION No. 400 of 2005 Phool Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarti andothers WRIT PETITION No. 426 of 2006 Smt. Dukalhin Ba Sinta Vs. State of Chhattisgarhand othere Present WRIT PETITION ftto.397 of 2008 Duideshi Ram Sahu Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh andothers WRIT PETITION No. 4076 ofMTO Keju Ram Jaiswal Vs. State ofChhatBsgenti and othere WRIT PETITION No. 1144of2004 Manrakhan Vs. State of Chhattis^irh andothers Mr.V.KPandey & Mr.Sanjay K.Agrawal. leamed counsd f6rthepetiuoner(8). Mr. Vivek Sharma, leamed Panet Lawyer for U»e Sterte of ChhatUsgarh. ORDER (Passed on 22nd Septembw 2005) The petitioners In this bateh of Writ Petltions are workmg as casual labour gangs/Daily WageLabour. The date of reBrement was Kyears, as per circular dated 09/03QOOO. The reqaonetent/Slate subsequentty by circular dated 16/08/2004 increased the age of retlrement from 55 years to GO yeare. This Court in W.P. No. 1914/2004 and aShw connected mEttere has considered this dispute as to whether the casual labeur gangs who have reUred on attaining the age of 55 years be ^ven the beneflt of Bie cireutar dated 16/08/2004 for (fte purpose of reSrement on attaintng the age of 60 years. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that these p^ttons are squarely covered by order dsrted 15/09Q005 passed by this Court inW.P. No. 1914/2004 and other connected maBere. Leamed counset appearing for fteSterte has no objectton. Accordingly, the petttions are allowed in terms of the order datod 15/(»/2005 passed by tttis CouU in W.P. No. 1914/2004 and other connected matters. — Sd/- Satish K. Agiiihotri Judge ^ "ys'