WW Sfmgk? 3am BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT “LL“ *x RU AQPITR PETITIONER ‘I‘ ..w"‘ / ”(:0 > Patan Dist : Durg (CG) v“? -V E R S U s RESPONDENTS / 01. State ofChhattisgarh through Secretary, PubHc Works Department, Mantralay, DKS Bhawan, Po. & Distt : Raipur (CG) /02. The Sub. Divisional Ofiicer, Public Works Department, (B&R) Sub .-Patan Distt : Durg Divisiom, Patan, Po (CG). WP- 2005(SB) (Service Matter) :/Smt. Hemin aged about 55 years W/o Kaliram, Parmanent Gang Labeurer, C [ e C ‘ § MM“ AW/Publio and Roads), Works Sub-Division-l, Depamnent Patan, (Buildings Distt : Durg (CG) R/o Village- Khana, Tahsil Petition under article 2/26/227 of the Constitution of India E For ssuance oi a writ of mandamus and certioran‘ and any other writ/direction/order. ‘ ““ . i \ 02/ HIGH GQURT GF§HHATTI§§AEHAT BILA§PUR SINGLE BENGH : HONQBLg MR. $ATISH K. AGNIHOTRL J. WRIT PETITIONNGJ76 OF 2006, Petitioner : Manaharan‘ v¢r$us Respondenis Shah of Ghhatxisgarh' and'others WRIT PETlTlON N9n351 9F 2W5 Petitioner : Kheduram V9f$U$ sate ef Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION NO.434>OF 2005 WRIT‘PETITION No.506 OF 2W5» Petitioner : Dwarika PrasadDahariya Vel'SUS Responoents, state of Chhdtisgarh tandranother V \v’ Petitioner : LaIiuBat I versus _ Respondents : Thesute of enhawsgarh and, others Petiti¢ner Petnimer Re$pon§§n§ Petitioner Respondenis Petitioner Respgndems WRIT PETITION N0.&B OF 200E Keju Patel, vergus . State of Ghhatisga'm andaiother WRIT PETITION NO.654 OF 20Q5 Smt. Sabmi‘Bai' versus\ state of Ghhaitisgarh and another WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 200§w Smt. Hemin versus sate of Chhamsgam and another. WRIT PETITION NO.11G§OF 2W5 Firat Ram Kashyap vgrsus I sate of Chhattisgam and: others Petitioner Respondens x3 WRIT PETITION’NOJ 121 OF 2005 6hasiya Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh andomors . Respongeqgg ’2)? _\»." WRIT PEIlTiQNNG1274OF 2M5; r Petitioner r Gautam Sahu g Versus, Respnndentsa . ‘: , smelefwawsgarhrawtauother WRIT PETITIGN N04135 OF2095 . Petitianer : Bhulelal >. \ Versus “W ResQmrw’ r : ’ state afGhhaMsgam an¢amther : WM Pawmmzm wsaw . Petitinnere : Jagaaaalsiagh.- I Varsus‘ Respondensz same-w Chmsgarh andanother 2 ,WRIT PETITIQN N0;2382,0F, 2W» Petitioner : - Kashiramv Versus Respendans State of‘crmauisgarh andanom4 WRIT PETITIWNQJW OF 2605, ‘ TulazRam‘ Versus swe of Chhauisgarh andothars Petitioner WRIT PETITION N036$4QF gnaw Ruwndents Manglu; _ V¢r$u$ r sate of Ehha$sgarh ardathets' ‘ WRIT PET!TI¢N‘-NG.4823 OF 20Q5 ‘ Soon Bai ‘ Petitioner Respondem Petitioners : State of Chhatti5$rh and others: WRIT PETITIONNGA4I QE 2005- v smrijiya aai awnings ._ V$r$u5 r Reepondeme Stateof aihanisgarh and another WRIT PETITION MOM, OF 200s Petiti¢n¢f$ Hari Kashyap and another ‘ Resmndom Versus statenotahhatisgarh and another- i WRIT PETITION N0,725 6F W: . Petitioner $umediSildar i Responden§ Versus &ate of ChWsgarh andcothors Present : Mr. SatyendraSahu, Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, MI. P.P.sahu, Mr. Rakesh Pandey. Mr. Sunil Otwani, Mn B.R.Ghosh. Ms. D'eepali Pandey, Mr. S.K.D’adsena, Mr. K.R.Nair, Mr. P.M.Shriwas. counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy. Denuty Advocate General: wim Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Pane! Lawyer for me State of Chhattisgamf' ; respondents. ’ ORDER (Passed on 7“; of November, 2006) The petitioners in this batch of writ petioons ave working as permanent GangMan in the Public Works Department of the State ‘ Government. These writ petitions ‘invom simiiarrfacts and common question of law. Thus. these writpetiiions are being disposedzof by'thie common order. 2. The petitioners were employed as permanent Gang. Man with the Pubiio Works Department of the Government The petinoners continue to workas casual permanent Gang Men ever since. By order dated 2-4-2003/24-4—2003. the State Govemmentdecided‘ to terminata » the services of the petitioners/GangMen working in me PublicWoriw Department either on completing 30 years 0t. service or amining the age of 60 years, whichever was earlier. Pursuant'to this order, the petitioners wereretired from their service on completion of 30 years'of' service. During the pendenoy of these petitions. the State Dovemment; by orderrdated" 24-3—2005; decided. to retire-Gang Men working in the Public Works Department on attaining the age of 60 yoarsanddecide¢ to deletelthe clause “retiring the Gang Man on complencn of 30years of service’i. This order was made/effective from 30-3-2005; / riff,“ 4f % 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties. it‘is clear that the requirement of completlun of 30 years of servlce for tho purpose of retirement has, been deleted wrth effeet from 303-2005. Learned counsel appearing for the state submitsthatthis order would be effective from 30-3—2005 and as such the Gem» Men. who had“ already retired from 30-3-2005. may not: begiven benem of-thisderder. The argument of learned counsel is not tenable and the same is not accepted. Purport of the order is quite clear and unambiguous. as it appears from the perusal of the order as well as‘from'me oontentionsof learned counsel for-the petitioners that the Gang. Whn who have not completed‘the age of:60 years as on 30-3-2005. they willabe allowed'to. continue till they attain the age of 60 years; itb informed by learned» counsel for the petitioners that some of the $3M Men. who have already retired on completion of 30 years of service,.have been paid > retiral beneiits. i.e., gratuity only. This will be unfairi if the petitioners, who. have retired before 30-3-2005 on. compledon of 3a years of service. though they have still some years to go before 60 ears of age. y are not given benefit of the order dated30-3-2005. 4. For the reasons f'abevecstamd; the respondents are directed to allow all the Gang Men, who had retired on oompbtion of 30 years of service, but have. not attainedthe age of60 years, to rejoin the service and continuertill‘ may attain‘the. age of 60 years, subject to adjustment of the retiral benetits, if any, given to them; The retital benefits. if any. paid earlier be deducted: from the salary of the employee concerned, in installments. at the maximum rate of 50% of the salary. it? * Ce? 5. In some of the writ parih‘ons, th‘a- petitianers have prayed for regularization of their service as Gang Man. Learned counsal appearingfo; thenpetitioners submit that the said prayer badismissed‘ as not pressed at present.- However. Iiberty be granted i0 the petitioners to raise theissue of «regularizaEon hefore the appropriate _ forum. if necessary. The writ petitions with regardnio the prayer of regularization are dismissed as not pressed: with liberty to the petitioners to raise the disputelseeking mdnessal of the relief of regularisation. if necessary, before the appropriaterforum.’ 6. In view of the foregoing. the writpetitions stmd allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents arevfutther directed to“ comply with this order within a period of two months from the date of ‘ receiptfoommunicatton of this order; No order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. \ Sdl— Satish Ks Agnihotri Judge Gopal