Singia 3encB e r'F IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.Y WRIT PETITION N0. ^l / 2005 PETITIONER: ^^^^ RESPONDENTS: ^Rameshar Sahu, S/oDerhu Ram Sahu, aged about 55 Years, Occupation Mate in the )epartmentofWater ^^ Resources, Sub Division Rajim R/o Village Basin, Thana & Tehsil Rajim , District Raipur , C.G. VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Water Resource Department Maatralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan Raipur(C.G.) 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Department Sub Division Rajim, District Raipur ,C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBTION. CERTIORARI. AND ANY OTHER WRITS. DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. cs^.^ ^^ (t ^ \: €^ 4 XI-HG—78 'srr^r ^T'f^ti^F ?[STT ^TR^T^RW -^ r-L ^iWCTi ^»*1|G»? ^^ '^TTO^, '3"^^ f^<rl{^^< ^.....U^Q^..^.t..^..•^ 200 ^T^T TT^)' (^fy<^>) ¥CTW^f^T3?T^r atlamta^ referelice of superaji]{iuati 27/01/2005 Shri Alok Dewaiigaii,j Shri Vmod Shrivastat HeardonI.A. No. 17: The petitioner has fil^ vide Annexure 'P-l, petitioner who is workiijjg Departaient of respoiident^ from 28/06/2004 after atl|a order is passed aad which fhe onler Leamed counsel for State Govero.ment has alrl letter dated 16/08/2004 been fixed to 60 yeai's as b^ submits that m. view of petition of smiUar nature to implement their order by Shri Ymod Shrivastava, Leamed counsel forl justice wiil be ser^ed if representation which is to tll^-t 4)^?<vi41^Tn"R^F ^f 'feTst ^^R ^5^FT3T!^T counsel for fhe petitioner. 1/a, G.A. forthe State. [/2005 for urgent hearmg. It is altowed. [d this mstaat petition agaiiist fhe order by respondent No.2 by which the i|g as Mate m tiie Water Resources has been superaiinuated with. effect t^ammg tfie age of 55 years. The above to this order vide Annexure P-2 by Qj{iuation was reduced to 55 years, piie petitioner further submits ttiat the ?ady taken the decision aad issued a v^hereby tiie age of superaanuation has ^fore, Learaed counsel for the petitioner decision, this Court has allowed tlie the respondents have been directed 16/08/2004. This is not disputed p.A. for the State, the petitioner submits tliat ends of jthe petitioner is allowed to laake a 1pe decided wifliiii fhe stipulatecl period ahd d^ted ^w ^^ XI-HC—78 3;H^T'5ET^T^ ^^n^n^T^Tw *(TH<'IT ^i^ll^i '3'^T ^TPTI^FT, .'^fNr^, [®l^iy^< ^.......y^:.r^...^.(.^^200 ^IT^T TRW ( ^qT^^) ^TWC^^T^^T -2-- supera^uiuatio io. the Ugltt of the order 1012/2003. I have heard leam.e<B. counsel for the State aad fact that fhe Goveraiiientl extended the age of 16/08/2004 and the inte^ petitiouer is giveu Uberty th.e respondents agahist th^ copy of fhis order wifhin above representation shaU farther penod of fbur week^ order dated 29/09/2004 ps|ssed With fhe aforesaid < . Consequently,I.A. Ncl. (^ated 29/09/2004 passed ia W.P. No. <=ns^<r{4i 'WT^f ^* fe^ ^N^R ^^ftR3T^T counsel for tiie petitioner aad also am. of the opiniou that ia. view of fhe has already ainended its polky aad ^uiuation to 60 years by its order dated :est of justice shall be seryed tf tlie |o raake detailed representation before ^ order as per Annexure P-1 ^dong wifh. LO days from today aad fherea&er the ^e deeided byj the respondents withia a in fhe Ught of fhe order of this Court inW.P. No. 1012/2003. ^er^ation, tlie petition is disposed of, {. 171/2005 staads disposed of. 1 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra 1 Judge obber^ation, ^y A-