^-^(2^> 7 S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRITPETITIONfSlNO.^^ / 2009. PETITIONER: ..^-^ a^t?- 4. ^'''.¥A\'-1"" ^'"' .-a"'^ >'' ^^ lr^L ^- ^?v^"' ^..> Chotto Ram, son of Jagmohan, aged about 61 years, Permanent Gangman, residence of Hariharpur, Post Madaitikra, Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Ambikapur, Public Works Department, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ^£_^-^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION QF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.26 OF 2009 PETITIONER Chotto Ram Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: - Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 13 day of November, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition was heard finally. (2) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the orde'r dated 10-11-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B & R), Division No.1, Ambikapur whereby the representation of the petitioner for continuation in service has been rejected. (3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner, who is working as permanent Gangman, is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Govind & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others1, this Court after having considered in detail ordered on 04-01-2007 as under:- "The petitioners, who are permanent Gangman, are entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 year in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short "the Act, 1967). The petitionwas allowed." On the basis of decjsion passed by this Court in Govjnd (Supra), fhe Deputy Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Chhattisgarh by circular dated 13-02-2008 directed the Engineer-in-Chief , Public Works Department, Raipur not to retire any permanent Gangman before he attains the age of 62 years. Learned counsel further submits that despite the order passed by this Court in Govind (Supra) as well as the circular, which was passed subsequently on 13-02-2008, the Executive Engineer, Public Works 12007(2)C.G.LJ.18 —1- ,s- Department (B & R), Division No.1, Ambikapur, has issued a letter to Chhattisgarh Laghuvetan Shaskiya Chaturtha Varga Karmchari Sangh, Ambikapur, mentioning that since the petitioner has retired on 31-03-2007, he cannot be taken into service. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the order passed by this Court in Govind (Supra) is applicable only after 13-02-2008 when the circular was issued. (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Contention of learned counsel for the State/respondent that the permanent Gangman would be retired on attaining the age of 62 years only after 13-02-2008 is noticed to be rejected. How, order of this Court, can be ignored, when there is no stay of the order by any superior Court. The provisions of the Act, 1967 was considered in Govind (Supra) wherein it was held that the permanent Gangman are entitled towork till they attain the age of 62 years in accordance with the Act, 1967 and the judgment was passed on 04-01-2007. The impugned order was passed on 10-11-2008 after rendition of the judgment as well as issue of circular dated 13-02-2008. Admittedly, the petitioner was made to retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 31-03-2CK)7 when the order passed by this Court in Govind (Supra) was already in existence. Thus, the impugned order dated 10-11-2008 is contrary to law laid down in Govind (Supra) and accordingly deserves to be quashed. Since the petitioner could not be reinstated before he attains the age of 62 years it appears that an attempt was made by the petitioner to join the service but he was restrained from joining and working by the authorities as it is evident from the impugned order dated 10-11-2008. (6) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all the wages and allowances, which he was entitled to from 01-04-2007 till he attains the age of superannuation i.e.62 years. The petitioner shall be granted benefits within a period of four weeks. Since the officer who has passed the order, has taken the decision after 04-01-2007, when the position of retirement of permanent Gangman was clear and the petitioner was made to retire despite the order passed in Govind (Supra), it is expedient that the petition may be allowed with cost quantified to be Rs.5,000/- which may be recoverable from the officer concerned as it appears that he has deliberately violated the order passed by this Court. ___ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge