IN THE HIGH COURTJUDICATURE.CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / TOV" Writ petUion no. 2-2-3^ of 2003 PETITIONER: TejiLalKurmi aged about 55 years. / S/0 Sri Heera Lal Kurmi / Village& P.0 Palari Distt. Raipur. (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: s^y. ^£^'.^ ^s^' ..^<s^, ^j^w <^^ 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Secretary Water Resources Department Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2. CHIEF ENGINEER Mahanadi Project, Raipur(C.G.) 3.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Water Resources Diviion No.2 Baloda Bazaar Raipur.(C.G.) 4.SUBDIVIStONAL OFFICER Water Resources SubdivisionNo.6 Baloda Bazar, Raipur. (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF THE CONSTITUTION CSF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFAWRIT INTHE NATU1RE OF MANipAMUS, PRQHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC ORANYOTHER EilRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTiGEIN THEMATTER. ltllll4s4* LA^ •-* ws pTi,: ^ 3 9 [.....^.^. HGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATnSQARI-k BLASPUR Sinal®Bcnch: Satish K Aanihotri. J VWUT PE71TION N0. 1914 crf 2004 Bisahu Ram Yadav Versue State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PET1TION N0. 768 of 2003 Sevak Rom Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Othors WRIT PETITION N0.2237 of 2003 Teji Lal Kurmi Vorsus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRITPETI710N N0.1271 of 2004 Kashiram Dheemar Vorsus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETmON N0.1698 of 2004 Lodga Ram Rawat Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others :'^ •^^ w^.s&.iw^sa -.<- 40 ^^ WRIT PET1710N N0.1709 of 2004 Panchu Ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETmON N0. 1766 of 2004 Paras Dhoowar Versus State of Chhattisoarh & Others :^:-t •,a WRIT RET1TION N0. 2276 of 2004 Fekulal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT pen'noN N0.3512 of 2003 Parsu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PE71710N N0.1607 of 2002 Samaru Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Mr. Vinay Pandey, Mr. Sunil Ottwani and Mr. S.K. Dadsena. leamed counsel for the petitioner. Present : Mr-V.V.S^ Murthy. & Mr. P.S. Koshy. leamed Dy; " Advocate Generals with Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava & Mr. Vh/ek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyers for the State of Chhattisgarh. a 9 )'!;?.;® 'Vl^ 3 rfl a :';^i 'I <-^ 41 .':iai s;a -a Brajeeh ORDER (Passed on 15th Septetrtoer, 2006) The petitionera in thb batch of writ pet'rtions are working as casual labour gango. The d&te of retirement was 55 yoars, as per ciroular d&ted 09.03.2000. Tha rospondont Stata subsoquantly by drcular dated 16.08.2004 increased the age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years. This Court m W.P. No. 1149 of 2003 has considered this dispute as to whether the casual labour gangs, who have retired on attaining the age of 55 years be ghwn the beneflt of the drcular dated 09.03.2000 for the purpose of retirement on 60 years. and order dated 29.09.2004 of this Court covers squarely the dispute involved in tWs batch of cases. Accordtngly, the petltlons are dlsposed of In terms of the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by thls Court in W.P. No.1149 of 2003. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3 •/;i :!,(:i »a l:?a .i ;1;I