^ »i^^ ','?"' i'^a-'S^siu^., (»S;£Sp3J! OES^&sK ^\<^T^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ('CHHATTISGARH') WRIT PETITION fSl N0. ^ ^^_Q^F 2007 PETITIONER ^^'t?[ '^^l^ ^t' ^' /)\.'" >•*' •y^'"' ^y^ ^' ^' RESPONDENTS ^ Bishram Singh Sahu Son of Shri Dhan Sai Sahu, aged about 60 years, Resident of Village Shankardah, Post and District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS -1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, 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.). It_PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI.PROHIBITION ETC. ^J\ ^ :-\^~ jyrrr'i 11 A f^^ ^<->.i- -i--i /^~^. (J2^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BiLASPUR SINSLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petifener WRIT PETiTION (S.i N0.988 OF 2007 Bishram Singh Sahu versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Preseni : Mr. P.P.Sahu, counset for the petitioner. Sunita Jain, Panet Lawyerfor the State/respondente. ORDER (Passed on 20th Day of February, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits ftat the petitioner, who was empioyed on 29-9-1981 as daily wage labour In the establishment of respondents No.2 and 3, seeks a relief that the petitioner, being permanent gangman, be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short 'the Act, 196T) read with Fundamsntal Rute 56. 2. According to teamed counsel for the peUtioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent emptoyee, as defined under Rute 2(c) of the Chhatti^arh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Emplovees) Pension Rules. 1979, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permanent ^!SW»"yS^--""!-W- emptoyee, the petitioner would retire on attainting the age of 62 yeare on superannuation underthe provisions ofttie Act, 1967. /- 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Coyrt passed on 4h January, 2007 in Writ Petition No.108 of 2005 (Govind vs. State of Chha sgarh and ofters) and other connected matters. 4. Leamed counse! appearing for the State/respondents does not dispute the submissions made by iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner. 5. The respondents are at iiberty to consider the facts of the case as to whelher the petitioner has completed 15 years of service as gangman. in the event, It is found ttiat the petitioner has completed 15 yeare of service, the case shall be governed by the decision of this Court in the matter of Govind vs. Stefe of Chhattisgaitt and otfiers (supra). 6. Accordingly, the peUtioner, who is permanent gangman, is entitied to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the provisions ofthe Act. 1967. 7. Thus, the writ petition is atlowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopai