PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : /1. Dhanush Lal S/o- Laxman Dhimar Aged about 59 years, Permanant Gangman, Subdivision no-1,P.W.D District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Throrugh-theISecretary, Pubiic Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer Sub~Division no.1, C.G. PWD, PWD Office, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) \~_\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF iNDiA ~ 90¢; r a $ I‘ \x x39 @ikawi‘g J i §g§§¢ “ @~ ‘ ’x 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3535/2008 J/ H§GH CGURT OF CHH£?T}SGARH: BILASPUR Wf§% §etiticn i3} No. 525 of 2098 Petitioner $hanush La? Sio. Laxman Dhimar, Aged about 59 years: Peymaaeni Gangman. Suhdivisioe ne.‘§-PWD, Déstrict ‘ Ragnandgaon, (CG). Versus Reseondems “0 Sia‘te of Chhat‘tisgarh, through the Saecyetaw‘ Pubiie Wwks Department, DKS. Bhawan, Raipur, D.K.S. Raipur (CG). g) Sub Divisioriai; @icef, Sub—Divismn No.1, 3G. FWD, FWD Office, Rajnendgacn, {Esm’et Rajnandgaon (CG). {Writ Petiiicn under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) $3 Honibie Mr. Saiisin K. Agnihoiri, J. Present: Shri Ari-up M‘eviiihderg eounsei fey the neiriiiener. Sm’i. Bim $i’iai‘ma, Penei Lawyei' for the $iai'e, ORAL $R3ER {Paesee en 25g“ Januaryjwa} Learneci caunsei appearing for the petiiioner submits that the petitioner, who was empioyeoi as permanent Gangman on i-S-1§YG in the Pubiic Works Department, Sub—Divisien Norm. Rajnandgaon, 3eek5 a reiief ihat ihe petitieaer being permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshikr-Ayu) Adhiniyam, res? {far short, “the Act, r957”) read we: $undamentai Rule 5'5. 2-) According to ieamed counsei appearing for the peritioner, ine petiiioner attained the stains of permanen‘t emrsioyee, as defined under Ruie 2 {c} of rne Chha‘aisgarn {Workcnaraed and Contingency Paid Empioyees} Pension Ruies, i9?3 {for short, “rhe Ruies i979”), fra under Arricie 339 of t‘ne Consrituiion of indie. After having ai I”, a ""///r 4 m r ' ‘w rk‘ ' status of the oermanent emoioyee the oetitioner wouid retire on attaining &. e aae of 62 vears on superannua‘t‘wh wider ihe ni'ovisions of ihe Act. 3) Learned ceunsei appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that case of ihe petitioner is squereiv covered b‘v‘ the decision of this Court gassed rm anuaw 29E? in Writ Peéiéier‘ I?! Nn 454 of 20' Prasad Yadav arrd others Vs. State of Chharr§soar'h & otrwers) and oiher cormected matters. ‘11 : \v; "v. i 4i Learned oounsei aooearing for the resoondentsiState does not dispute the submissions made iov iearned counsei appearing for the oeiitioner. 5) The respondents are at iiberty to consider the facts of the case as to whethet the petitioner has compieted i5 years of service as gangman. in the event, it is found that the petitioner has comgieted 15 services of service! the case shaii be governed by the decision of this Court in the matter of Ram Prasad Yadav and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others {sunra}. "\ o, Accordingiy, ti e petitioner. who is a permanent gangman, is entitied to retire on attaining the age 0t 82 years in accordance with the Act. 4:967. 7) The petition is accordingiy aiiowed! subject to veritication of the facts. No order as to costs. ’ Sd/ if Satish K. Agnihotri: Judge Ragu