^-^ Q l-. .jencu l^ •9...... l^ tHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: -^ Writ Petition No. 9^ of2005 •' Tek Ram Yadav Aged about 58 years. S/0 Shri Parsu Yadav Village -Dhamdhani 85 Post- Semradih.r^u.e>^o<A^tee.z<^ Distt. Raipur. (C.G.) VERSUS l.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resources Department Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub-Divisional Officer Water Resources Department Sub-Division No.7, Baloda Bazar Distt. Raipur. (C.G.) . ^7 ..••••; ^' l!/v / ^7..^ ^ ^ .k\ A' ^//^ <^^' WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THB NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI BTC OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICB IN_THE MATTER. ..-L...... XI-HG—78 'sn^r ^T R-rii°h 1cTSTT ^TT^T^FHNr ^ \ .^ <" ~^v -i ^IMCTI «i»<(c<i ~3^T ^jj^Krl^, ^ti1<H^(o, [^<rl!<H^< —....w.f...' ^200 3TT^?T tT^F ( ^iI^<^T) ^^HWT?fi?T 3H^T 31/01/2005 Shri SunU Ottwaai, e4 Shri Akhil Agrawal, P| HeardonI.A. No. 223), The petitioner by fh^ order of Annexure P-1 by service with. effect from 3 petitioner had akeady atta(iied years. Learaed counsel for had subsequently taken fb^ fhe age of superaiinuation ija been enhaaced to 60 yeaij Annexure P-6. Learaed coi| fhat siniUarly situated gaa^ reiastated and passed suit^ble dated 16/08/2004 in their Leamed counsel fd petitioner has not attaiaedj Annexure P-6 even then 31/10/2000. Leamed counsel for the State GoveniBient has 60 years vide order Annexi4 I have heard learaed <=M^f<n41l 'RW^rf ^ fe^t iFsi^K ^T 3TRR 3??^T >unsel for fhe petitioner, L. for tfae State. / 2005 for zirgent hearuig. It is allowed. uistaat petition has challenged fhe yhich the petitioner was renioved froiii Sl/10/2000 on fhe ground that the ttie age of superannuation i.e. 55 fhe petitioner subraits fhat fhe State decision dated 16/08/2004 whereby fhe Water Resources Department has s. The above order has beeu filed as insel for fhe petitioner further subniits raen were directed by this Court to be order ia accordan.ee wifh fhe order ^ases also. r the petitioner subinits that fhe the age of 60 years as per poUcy vide the petitioner has been retit'ed on the respondents has not disputed fhat ?nhanced flie age of superaruiuation to ^ P-6. ;ounsel for the parties, ^ ^ ^ ^ii^l^T^W WI^I^T^^W ,^Y ---1,- ^Nyil' 'WW^ft ^^ -^T?[I^[, •^•^FR, tsroTRTgT ^........U,.£....^.,....ftfc.|..a^'200 •3^r^q?^ (l^?3^) ^ll^ ^fer 3^^i Leam.ed couusel for petitioner is graated Ubertt respondents to consider his| poUcy vide Annexure P-6 aa4 by the petitioner, the sanie period ia fhe ends ofjustice s^ Thus, considering the aiid further considermg fhe has been enhaiiced to 60 1149/2003 vide oider respondents to reconsider thej am of flie opmion that ttie petltloner is given Uberty to the respondeuts for wiUim IQ days from today respondents withm a further of such representation m Annexure P-6 aiid in fhe Ughl iaW,P. No. 1149/2003. Wifh this observation, Consequently, I.A. No. dat^d ei|ids reinstatedient arld tbe ^Flfel^N WR^ ^f 'fe^t <?^^l< ^^H.^r^i fche petitioner submits fhat if the to niake representation to the case for reuistateiaent as per new on such representation being made |s to be decided witliia a stipulated |iall be served. Eacts and circumstarices of fhe case fact fh.at fhe age of superarmuation ^eai's aad fhis Court m W.P. No. 29/09/2004 had directed the cases of alrcady retired gang nien, I of justice would be served if the |iiake detailed representation before as per poUcy vide Annexure P-6 the same shall be decided bv the period of four weeks frora fhe receipt light of chaage of policy vide of order dated 29/09/2004 passed tt|e petitk>n is disposed of 2p3/2005 stands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Gi: PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. w^ v/v/o 'F ^ .s