c^'\v^ L- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATnSGARHI WRIT PETITION (S} N0. ^7' (3 '-/ OF 2007 PETITIONER ^' \^'r-X}y .•• ^"'•::;?'-'"'\<--'" rc^Y^' ^^y yyy Tukaram Sahu Son of Shri Sandhulal Sahu, aged about 60 years, Resident of Village and Post Kondel, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). .•^' y^- y RESPOMDENTS \ ^. ^ /^ \ ^' -^"^L^ VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secret.ary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 2. The Executive Engineer, Water Management Division Rudri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). ^, 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Management .Sub Division No.l Rudri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). ,'f^ V^ST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOK ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION ETC. ^ HK3H COURT QF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR iGLE BENCH : HQN'BLEMR. SAtLSH K. AGNJHQTRI, J. PetitioAer WRIT PETITiON (S.t N0.984 OF. Tukaram Sahu versus Resoondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. P.P.Sahu, counsei for the pettioner. >. Sunte Jain, Panel Lawysrforthe State/respondents. ORDiR (Passed on 20th Day of February, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for ttie petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was employed on 1 -11 -1986 as daily wage labour in the estabiishment of respondents No.2 and 3, seeks a relief that frie petittoner, being permanent gangman, be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhinivam. 1967 (for short the Act, 1967') read with Fundamentat Rule 2. According to tearned counsei for the petWonw, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under Ruie 2(c) Of the Chhattisgarh (Woikcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of tndia. After having attamed the status of the permanent employee, the petitioner wouid retfre on attainting the age of 62 years on superannuation underthe provisions offte Act, 1967. 3. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of She petitioner is squarely covered by the decfsion of this Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in Writ Petition No.108 of 2005 (Govind vs. Stefe o/ ChhatSsgaffi and ottrers) and other eonnected matters. 4. Leamed counsel appearing tor the State/respondente does not dispute the submissions made by learned counset appearing for the DeStioner. 5. The resDondents are at Siberty to consider the facts of the case as to whether the petitioner has completed 15 years of service as gangman. In the event, it Is found that the petitioner has completed 15 years of service, the case shail be governed by the decision of this Court in the matter of Govind vs. State of ChhaWsgarh and ofhers (supra). 6. Accordingiy, ttie petitioner, who is permanent gangman, is entltled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with ttie provisions of the Act, 1967. 7. Thus, the writ petition is atlowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sopal