c o"' •assd&lj iSiS'S'iS' :ae IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.24^3/2006 Petitioner ^Son Charau S/o Shiv prasad Venna, Aged about 60 years, R/o Village Kanld, Thana Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus •' ts , ,'/[\-' ^N^ ^y^ ^>y ..•••• '^.j^ ^ .-'y^ / cb '^t G '«••• G 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Management department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ' 2. Sub Divisional OfGcer, Water Management, Sub division No.5, Kanki, Thana Kharora, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) / 3. Executive Engineer, water Management, Balodabazar Division No. 2, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTERORI QR ANY OTHER DIRECTIONfS') OR ORDER(S) HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINOLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRL J. Petitioner WR1T PETITiON N0.2473 OF 2006 Son Charan Versys Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and Present : Mr. Ashok Patil, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Deepa!S Pandey, Panel Lawysr for the Stete/respondents. ORDER »tn (Passed on 19m Day of February, 2007) Learned counset appearing for the petittoner submits Uiat the petitioner, who was employed in ttie year 1978 as workcharged empioyee and has worked for more than 25 years as gangman, seete a relief that the petltioner, being permanent gangman, be rstired at ttie age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarehila-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rute 58. 2. According to learned counsel for ttie petilioner, the petitioner attained the status <rf permanent employee, as defined under Ruie 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Woriccharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, framed under Articte 309 of the Constitution of Endla. After having atlained the status of ttie permanent employee, the petitioner would retire on attainUng the age ef 62 years on superannuaUon underthe prowisions ofthe Act, 1967. 3. Learned counsel appearing fo( the petitioner submlts that ttie case of the petitioner is squareiy covered by fte decision of is Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in Writ Pefition NQ.IOS of 200S {Govind vs. State of Chhattsgafh and offters) and other connected matters. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondente does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. The respondents are at iiberty to consider the (acts of the case as to whether the petltioner has compteted 15 years of serviceas gangman. !n the event, it is found that he has comptoted 15 years of service, the case shall be governed by the decision of this Court in ttie matter of GowncS vs. Stete of OihaWsgarti and others (supra) . 6. Aecordingly, the petitioner, who is permanent gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1967. 7. Thus, the writ petition is ailowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Gopal