^ a •^ / IN THE OF AT Wj3STPETITIONNO. ^fc OF 2003/ o^yV NT $5- Sm Sri gr rr ^' ./' -3>^^'-:^ , ^s^^ r.^'ws^--' p,^—.^ ^•» M@. 2 rc.G-i z. ir " {C»s3.j :.^ ro. arsd Hl§ of tht y • oy ./ ^t. Cfihattfegarh 8t Bltespvr. M^^ ^y . R)Y2?yy' OF THE |^/^ ^^'_____ _ OF ^^ -^^;;;y ^ KOH COURT OF JUDICATURE Ct-HAmSOWK aLASPUR Slnnlc Bench : Sattsh K ^nihotri. J WRIT PET1TION N0. 1914 af 2004 Bisahu Ram Yadav Ver8U8 State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PEnTION N0. 766 of: Sevak Ram Versus Stato of Chhattisgarh & Othars WRIT PETniON N0.2237 of 2003 Teji Lal Kurmf Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PET1TION N0.1271 of 2004 Kashiram Dheemar Vorsus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION N0.1698 of 2004 Ledga Ram Rawat Versus State of Chhattisoarh & Others ^r^ WR1T PETITION N0.1709 of 2004 Panchu Ram Versus State of Chhattlsgarh & Others WRIT PETmON N0. 1766 of 2004 Paras Dhoowar Versus State of Chhattisoarh & Others WRIT PET1TION N0. 2276 of 2004 Fekulal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PET1TION N0.3612 of 2003 Parsu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WR(T P^miON N0.1607 of 2002 Samaru Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others %. II •^ 'll :.IS:;ii .^ ^ '^- \^•^- Mr. Vlnay Pandey. Mr. SunH Ottwani and Mr. S.K. Dadsena, leamed counsel forthe petittoner. Preaent : M^:..v-y-s^ Murthy. & Mr- P-S. Koshy. leamed Dy. Advocate Generals w(th Mr. Pankaj Shnvastava & Mr. vtvel< Sharma, learned PanelLawyers for the State of Chhattisaarh. •4a '.^ IDER 1 (Riwsed on 15 Sfcptember. 2006) The petitlonora In thia botch of writ petltlon3 are worWng a^ casual labour fl&nge. The date of retirement waa 55 yan, «•per clroular dated 08.03.2000. Thft roapondant Stato tubcoquontly by clrcular datod 16.08.2004 increased the age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years. This Court in W.P. No.1149 of 2003 has considered this dispute as to whether the casual labour gangs, who have retired on attainlng the age of 55 years be gtven the beneftt of the clrcular dated 09.03.2000 for the purpose of retirement on 60 years, and order dated 29.09.2004 of this Court covers aquarely the dispute involved in this batch of caaes* Accordlngly, the petltlons are dlsposed of In terms of the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by thls Court In W.P. No.1149 of 2003. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 Brajech