HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 21 04 of 2008 Petitioner Smt. Fuiu Bai, Wio. Thanram, aged about 60 years, Caste Teli, Rm. Viiiage Sondur, RS. Sihava, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (CG). Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department 0f Water Resources, Mantralaya, D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Sub Divisionai officer, M‘RP. Dam, $ub Division No.1, Mechka, District: Dhamtari (CG) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) ' SB: Hon’ble Mr. satish K Agnihotri, J. Eraser}? $5ri MaEendra Dubey with Shri sanjeev Kumar Sahu. - Shri Aiok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. counsel for the petitioner. a ORAL ORDER ' (Passed on 10m day of April zoos) With consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the . mater is heard finally. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner. who was appointed as daily wage labour'in the establishment of respondents No. 1 and 2, in 1982, seeks a relief that the petitioner being ' permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya SevaktAdhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short, “the Act, 1967”) read with Fundamental Rule 56. 3) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner attained theistatus of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short, “the Rules 1979”), framed under Article 309 4V j//wv . 1 5w 5 l of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permanent employee, the petitioner wouid retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 4) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4‘” January, 2007 in Writ Petition (S) No. 108 of 2005 (Govind & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others} (2007 (2) C.G.L.J. 29) and other connected matters. 5) Learned counsei appearing for the respondentsiState does not dispute the submissions made by teamed counsel appearing for the i > petitioner. 6) Accordingly, the petitioner, who is a permanent Gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with sthe provisions of the Act, 1967. 7) The petition is accordingly allowed, subject to verification of the facts e asto whether the petitioner has acquired the status of status of permanentoa ’ Gangman. No order as to costs. ,./ r r ’ ’ /%%f Sd/- ‘ iSatish K. Agnihgtfi: l a Judge