4/6“» va’Kl/ §§§€QLE ?MQH IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASBUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. W4 5/0f 2o 10 PETITIONER: Ramlai S/o Shn' Kartik , aged about 62 years, occupation retired Gangman in permanent Gang, Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (CG), R/or Ddolia, Charbhata, Post Jhal, Bemetara, District Durg (CG). ' Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, thrgugh the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralay at; i, VD. K. S I Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The Engineer—in—Chief, Public Works - Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). The Superintending Engineer, Public Works ’Department‘, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). “The Executive Engineer, Public ’Works Department, Tehsil and Division Bemetara, District Durg (C9). The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Bemetara Tehsil Bemetara, District Durg (CG). RESPONDENTS: ,x 1. /é. /4, £ wIgIT RETITIQN UNDERARTICLE 226,01? THE CONSTITUTIQNWQEINDIA 4 ® / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4445 ofZOIO PETIT}ONER : Ramlal. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Siate of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE'I‘ITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER g ORAL! (Passed on 18 day of Jaxmary, 20 1 l) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petin'oner was employed as Labour: Fermament Gangman es is evident firom the photo-copy of the service book (Aimexure P/l). i The petitioner retired from service on 30. 11.2009 aher completion of 32 years oi: service and thus, the petitioner is entitled to pensionatéi' benefits in View of Rule 6 of the’fM.P./C.G. (Work— ehargeti & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. He further submits that similar issue eame up for consideration before this Court in MAHakim v, State Qf"Madhya Pradesh {Now C.G.) & Others}. 2. Shri Thakur, learneii Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that so far as law is conceme¢ the same w / \ 1 W13. No'. 4153/2005, decided on 28.08.2006 . \ _ \y x n?I " ** Cw /O g) 2 §s well settled by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court, in MAHakimI, ailer having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the case, observed that a Gangman is entitled to peusion under the Rules, 1979. The order passed in .MA.Hakim" was taken to the Supreme Court in Petition for special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19728/2006, which was dismissed on merits. Thus, the order passed in MAHakimJ became final. 4. Since the Statelrespondents has not filed any document to controven the submissions made by the petitioner, the petition is alloweci in terms of the order passed in MAHakiml, subject to verification ofthe iacts 5. o order asto costs. N I. )U sd/ Satish K. Aé'nihoiii Judge Ami: