^——5^- p-fi-A?o.,, presQn^hy^^ t!ated—^s iiifilE IFMCK ^s^: -•/-<!?..(.. IN THE HIGH COURT QF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. S74~7/2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / 1. Ramji Potai, S/o Shri Udaisingh Pofai, Aged about 58 years, R/o Abhapara, Asulkhar, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS Sfcate of Chhattisgarh Through-the Secretary, . Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, R.B. Road, District - Bhanupratapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^^^ffqT^P?, "^i^FTS. "fa^R^ sn^r-^T '^IW^TT^T ^RW^Iin 3?I^T.^^ ,_..u/.,.fc;..s.'?..l^f ^TOHT^^^""""""""""""""""'""^^^ 200 ^I^T ^TT^ °3c?f^ chl^f<ri4ltl 'HTR^if ^ 'fe^ T^^K ^3?^R-3^T ttte 5-12-2005 .SM .^noop Majumdar, Couns©| Shri Sandeep Dubey, Go^. Ad^' Heard. Counsd for the petitioner further submits that m batch of case^, Dadsena and others -v- State of Clihi onl 5th September 2005. This fact is not in a position to Shri Majumdar submits that he has not given the relief as there i^ beenfiled. la the order dated 15-9-2005 p| the Court has held as under:- •'3............;...Puiport of thej appears from the pemsal of thJ€ petitioners that the gang men on 30-03-2005. they vvffl be years. It is -mformed by the the gang men, who have alrea<|y have been paid retiral benefit^ petitioner^ who have retired ^ sen'ice, though they haw stiUj not givren benefit oforder date4 4. For the reasons stated "-^^the gang men, who had re&e^ fbr the petitionen }'. for the State. •sub|iiits; that the- matter relates to ga.ng man. H©. • ;as4 mcluding W.P. No. 1722/2003 (Mohanlal |ttisgarh and others), orders have been passed ispiite fhis fact. ic petitioner approached to the authorities but no court order, Accordmgh7 this petition has T ifessed in W.P. No. 1722/2003 m batch ofcases, •^ order m quite -clear and unabmibuous as it thje order as wetl as from the contentions ofthe ^ho have tiot completed the age of 60 years as aAowed to continue tifl thev attam the age of60 leatiied counsel for the petitioners(s) that some of °ea4y retired on completion of 30 years of sen/ice, i.e. gi'atuity oriy. This vvffl be unfair, if the lefore 30-03-2005 on completion of30 years of isome years to go before 60 years of age, are [30-03-2005. ibove, the respondcnts are directed to allow aU on completidn of 30 years of sendce but have [^it^^fe^ :.^^::... •.^^: -r— XI-HC-22 ^STI^T'^T Riii^ ^nt^i ^>4-iic?» ^lftd + ^ y^^ (S5^K' -^^ "^FTY^ra. ^WTS, i^iray ;3ff^r WR^fT^^ra? ^200 "^•^r sni^T '^TI^R 'gf^ ii^i aii.au.i^ui ui^ f^e- a^,s^ ufi. <jlv j^ai attam the age of 60 years, giventothem. (5) In soxne of the petitions| of their sendces as Gang man. ..the said prayer be disi-nissed as gi'antcd to the petitioners to appropriate fomm, if necessai^j regularization are dismijssed as raise the dispute seefcbig redres^ before ths appropriate forum. (6) bi ^iew of the foregoii|ig, mdicated above. The respond^iits order within a period of two xnjontlis ofthis order. No order as to costs. sul4iect to depositing the retiral benefits, if any, the petitioners have prayed for regularization |.eamed counsel for the petitioners subimt that ^iot pressed at present. However, the Vherty be raisc the issue of regularization before the j. The petitions with regard to the prayer of Jnot pressed with libeiW to the petitioners to }al of the relief of regularization, if necessary, ^Q^g, This petition also stands allowe|l ordei- passed m W.P. 1755/2003. The i^ the orderg within a period ofhvo montjis Qfthis order. M.W.P. No. 4554/2005 stands! C.c. as per mles. c^!^f<n^1vi HW^ "? fe^llf^^< '^^if^TCT^T 15 l-'U A^JU'AAl Ul^ i5Sh/A VA^-^0 <^A1UI ^kJ'AllU.lU^/ the petitions stand allowed to the extent are further directed to comply with tiiis frpin the date of receipt/coiimiumcation to the extent mdicated above to the extent of sspondente are further directed to comply with from the date of comtnumcatioii^production Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [Tff^ ^Ra^