^^^^i^^^s^^^^S^^^^ '^^l^f^^S^^C'hh- '"£??:"^ja .•••^•:' HIGHCOURTOy CHHA'mSGAKHATBII.ASPUR W.P.ISl N0.51/2008 PBTITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus 1. 2. 3. Smt AsKbal Wife of Late Shri. JheturaEa, ^ed about 60 years, Resident of BOndkala, ^ntipur, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Dui^ (CG) State of CIihattisgarii, Througb: The Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S.Bhawali, Raipur (CG) The Sub Divisional Officer, Malianadi Water Managemeut, Sub Diyisiou. No.8, GuTur.Distri.et Dhamtari(CG) The Executive Engineer, Water Man.agem.ent, Rudri, District Dhamtari(CO) i-.'.U.LiJ WRn* PBTITION UNDEatAKTICLB 226 OF THECOWSTITUTIOM OFINDIA (8B:HonT3leME.SatiShK.AaaiUtofar*.J.l Sbn P.P.Sahu, counsel fer fhe petitj'oner, Ms. Suiiita Jaiu, Paael Lawyer for fhe State. ORALOKDER . (Passed oa thls 7«hdayofjanusu-y 2008? 1. Bythlspetition, the petidoner, who has worked as dailywage labour ia the 'establishmen.t of respondeut No. 2 aad 3 sicLCe 19.12.1977 seeksarelicf that iu terms of the memiO/order/direction gtven; toy vanpus departments of the Goveraiaent, the leth-eineatage efthe labour is fixed as 62 years in aceordance with the Chliattisgarh SlLasldya Sevak (Adhivarshiki- Ayu) Adluriiyain, 1967 (for sBort fhe Act,19671) read wlth Fundamental Rule (for short'P.R.') 56. ^. Accordiag^tolearaedeouns^^tliepetttioD^f^ attained the status ofpermanent emplDyee, a^ 2(c) of the CIihattisgarh (Worl'EGliaj^d and Co^^ Eniplc^es) JPensicm Rutes, 1979 (fbr short^^^^ft^ fiamed under Article 309 ofthe Constitution ofliidia. After haviug attamed the status of permaaent em.ployee, as defiined under Rufe 2 (c) of the CIihatdsgarh (Workcharged and Contiugency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules, 1979), framed underArdcle 309 ofthe Constitution oflndia. After having attained the status ofthe penaarientem.ployee, the petitioner would retire on attaming the age of62 years on superaanuation under the provisions of fhe Act, 1967 . 3. Learo^ed counsel appearing for the petitiouer would submit fh.at fhe case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4th Jaauaiy, 2007 in W.P. No. 108/2005 (Govind Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh aiid Ofhers) and ofher coimected m.atters. 4. Leamed couasel appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the submission made by fh.e learaed counsel for the petitioner. Suguna 5; Accordingly, the petitioner, wbo is working as daily wage labour, is entifted to retire on attaming the age of 62 years in accordaace witb. ftie Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed, subject to vert&cation ofthe facts. No order as to costs. ^& " ^: .iii.tNJuil.,;