HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wjit Petition (S) No. 824 of 2008 Petmoners 1. Rath ram Dewangan, aged about 4O years. son of Shri Sukdeo Prasad Dewangan, working as Gangman. Pubiic Works Department (B & R) Bilaigam Sub Division, Bilaigarh, Disn. Raipur (C.G.) Appointed on 1.1 .81. 2. Virendra Kumar son of Damodar. aged about 47' years. working as Gangman. Public Works Department (B & R) Bilaigarh Sub Division. Biiaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Appointed on 1.8.82 3. Nayan Singh Yadav, aged about 47 years, son oi Shri Wahaurik Yadav, working as Gangman, Pubiic Works Department (B&R) Biiaigarh Sub Division, Biiaigarh. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Appointed on 1.1 .81 Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Public Works, ‘Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department. Sub Division — Bhatgaon. Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTlTUTiON OF lNDiA Single Bench :Hon‘bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri F. S. Khare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri U. N. S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the reepondeme. QRAL ORDER (Passed on this 8‘" day of February, 2003) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State jointly submit that the taste and question of law. involved in the present writ petition. are the same asto that of in Govind & others Vs. State of C.G. & Others {2007 (2) C.G.L.J. 29}. wherein it is held that the permanent gangmen are entitled to be retired on attaining the age of 62 years. in accordance with the “1" provisions of the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam. 1967. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State further submits that_if the case of the petitioners is on the same footings. there is no reason to deny them the benefits available to the permanent gangmen. Accordingly, this writ petition is aiioweci in terms of the order bassed in the case of Govinci & others (supra), subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioners have acquired the status of permanent \e gangmen. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri; Judge He