HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BELASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 134 of 2008 Smt. Puniya Bai, D/o. Sadashiv, aged about 60 years, working as permanent Gangman, resident of Viilage Nawagaon (Pateva), Post Pateva, Police Station Petitioner Tumgaon. Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Pubiic Works Department, Mantralaya, ‘ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Respondents 2) Sub Divisionai Officer, National High Way, Sub Division P.W.D. Pithura.“ District Mahasamund (CG). 3) The Executive Engineer, Nationai Highway, Division Raipur (CG). 4) The Sub Engineer, P.W.D. Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vinod Tekam, counsel forthe petitioner. Smt. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ January,2008) 1) By this petition, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was employed in the month of January, 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 being 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 Fundamental Rule 56. 2) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under x 4,. av -‘)//. / @ Rule 2 (c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short, “the Rules 1979" , framed undel' Article 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permanent employee 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, 2007 in Writ Petition (S) No. 108/2005 (Gavind & others Vs. State of C.G. and others) and other connected matters, 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State "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 attaining the age of 62 years, in accordancewith the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed, subject to verification of " er, .1 Sd/- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge the facts. No order as to costs.