IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRITPETITION(S)NO..^^ /2011 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 , ^^.^ ^\-<^...- ^/€-^ '^y^ ^y^'' ^'J^ 2. -Vft^" '-• ^' ^' JAMAY BAI, Age about 62 Years, D/o Shri Rupdhar, Retired as Permanent Gangman, R/o Village - Gohrapadar, Post - Gohrapadar, Tahsil - Mainpur, District-Raipur(C.G.) State of Chhatiisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, P.W.D. ^ Gariaband Sub divioioh No. 2 (B&R), Gariaband, Dsitt Raipur(C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (PWD) Gariaband Sub-division No. 2 (B&R), Gariband, Distt: Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UN DER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC—78 CT^I vi W\* 'i^sn^T'^iN' De^»y tllHCTI Sh*11«t» 3'e; ^iqiMi, ®Ti1'M'i(o,fa<diy^< ^.l..Ai.^./M... Wi, 200 sn^r Tra?T (i*if^«i<{i[) TCiiWirioaii^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moh 13-05-2011 counslei Shri Yogesh Pandey, Shri Sushil Dubey, copy. Leamed counsel for the petj to pension because the petitioner permanent Gangman. He submit^ pension of one, who is a perma) decided in the case of M.A. Hakint (W.P.(S) Noi.4135/04), Sone Sai $ and Jhunia Bai v. State of C.G. at counsel for the petitioner submit^ considered the claim of the petitiorj Learned state counsel claim would be considered by the| down by this Court in the case of| Bai (supra). In view of the subnli would be proper to direct petitioner for grant of pension, in exped'rtiously. With the aforesaid observatl for the petrtioner. Goverrhient Adv<x;ate for the State on advance sublnits <»ii<i[<i<<)i'Riwf if 'fe^t <rii<{i< ^siRnan^r in Shrivastava, >). jtioner submits that the petitioner is entitied i|vas appointed in a regular scale and was a I that the issue with regard to entitlement of fient Gangman has been considered and v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others $ahu v. State of C.G. (W.P.(s) No.3572/05 ihd others (W.P.(S) NQ. 2884/08). Learned that the respondent authorities have not jer in the light of the aforesaid decision. that the case of the petitioner and his [competent authority in the light of law laid 1-lakim (supra), Sone Sai Sahu and Jhunia (issions made by iearned State counset, it No.2 to consider ttie ctaim of the bccordance with law and decide the same respohdent ons, the petition is finally disposed off. sdL»Shrivastava l ,1Vloban3»"-- lnindraSge &