5 -• '^ .„ ^Ayr{ c-r- (@ IN THE H£GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) VvRIT PETSTION N0.^ '2— I 20G5 PETITIONER: u°i.!..&3-c >t^7€^"^ ,->••*" hw L^^"T^^- •c'.^.- ^. -&"\-\ RESPONDENTS: Johat Ram Sahu, S/o Jai'hu Rain Sahu, aged O ^x)ut 55 Years, Occupation Labour in Ae Department of Water Resources, Sub Division Rajim, R/G Vi!!age Basin, Thai-ia & Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS ^l. StateofChliattisgarh Through the Secretar}7, V/ater Resource Department Mantraiaya, D.K.S.Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Vv/ater Resource Department Sub Division Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF 1NDIA FOR SSSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBTION. CERT!ORART, AND ANY OTHER WR!TS. DIRECTIQNS OR ORDERS. ^ ^n^r ^r ^i<^ WiT3^^T^rHI^ /.;-.-. Nl*«1( ^N8<Cfi '3'^T ^l^i<ri^ ^Tl1^4l(o/f®l<rll<{3T ^....^:.(?.:.^...^..^-^ 200 3TI^T XR^T (^i^q^T) ^RTFW^fey ^T^T 2'7/01/2005 Shri Alok Dewaagan, Shn Vuiod Shrivastav^ Heard on I.A. No, 1721 The petitioner has Sle^. vide Anriexure P-1, passe<p. petitioner who is workin^ Department of respondent^ from 28/06/2004 after order is passed and refererlce which the order ofsuperaii4u€ Learaed counsel for State Goveniinerit has letter dated 16/08/2004 been fixed to 60 years as att^iiiiag submits tliat in view of fh^ petition of similar nature to unplenient their order d^ by Shri Vin.od Shrivastava, ^ Learaed counsel forl justice will be seryed tf representation which is to G^(^[^<i)i *si*{<ril ^ [k^ <rt^l< ^ 3tRPT 3T?^T ^ounsel for the petitioner. r^, G.A. for the State. !^2005 for urgent hearmg. It is aUowed, th.is nistao^t petition agaiast the order by respoudent No.2 by which the as Mate ui fhe Water Resources has been superaanuated with effect the age of 55 years, The above to tliis order vide Annexure P-2 by ^uation was reduced to 55 years, Ipie petitioner further subinits fh.at fhe taken fhe decision aad issued a fhe age of superaanuation has ^ LearD.ed counsel for the petitioner |t decision, tliis Court has allowed the the respondents have been directed ^ited 16/08/2004. This is not disputed <pr.A. for the State. fhe petitioner subniits fhat ends of pie petitioner is aUowed to niake a ^e decided withiii fhe stipulated period ak^ady w|:iereby bdfore afcd Gt.PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. '12- XI-HC—78 3?T^T ^?'f^TN? ^SH ^H^T ^^ 'g^-qiq|<nq, ^^^4j(o, f^ffy^i WR^(T^»Hra» .F.:..A...5.2.[^2oo ^?r1TT^(^if5^^) ia tlie Mght of fhe order 1012/2003. I have heard leam.dki couiisel for th.e State aad fact fhat the Govemment) extended fhe age of 16/08/2004 aiid the int^n petitioner is given liberty flie respondents against copy of fhis order wifhiir above representation shall farth.er period of four weelsjs order dated 29/09/2004 ps Wifh the aforesaid Coiisequentiy, I.A, N<|. (^ated 29/09/2004 passed ia W.P. No. ^j^fa<fli ^N^ft ^ fs^i <r3i<^i< ^3tfOT3?i^l super^anuation iat^rest thb counsel for fhe petitioner and also am of the opuiion that ia view of the has already amended its policy aiid to 60 years by its order dated of justice shall be ser^ed tf flie jto m.ake detailed representation before order as pcr Annexure P- I along with p.0 clays froni toclay aad fhereafter tiie |be decided by th.e respondents withiii a ni fhe Mght of tlie order of this Court jissed inW.P. No. 1012/2003. otlservation, the petition is disposed of. ^. 172/2005 staiids disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge v^