.SO^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. 8S$/ <S>0 PETITIONERS l.Anuj Ram, S/o. Itwari, aged about 49 years, R/o. Village Khursega, P.0. Kodopara, Tehsil & District Dhamtari "fi. -''• ....-•.^ ^""'i\y'"" .^"'3-' punit Ram> S/o. Halal Khor, aged about -" 51 years, R/o. Village Darba, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari(C.G.) OJ.*' 3. Ramberan, S/o. Guha Ram, aged about 50/years, R/o. Village Ghatapara, Tehsil Kfirud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) \^'6Ti^""' ^..--^.'s^^^y^' yy RESPONDENTS ,^ -)-C^J- '^•',oA" VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, .-" Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.j i .^^^ 2.--engineer in Chief S'A> Public Works Department, ^'•" fr- ^i, fl- ' Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) G^ »-- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/3»t OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF M&NDAMUS, PRQHIBITION, CERtlQRASI^tC^OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S\ No. 883 of 2007 Petitioners Anuj Ram and others Verais Respondents : State of ChhaUisgarh aind another SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate for •tfie petitioners. Mr. V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advoeate Senerul with AAr. Sushil Dubey, ©ovemmentAdvoca-te for the State/req)ondents. ORDER (Passed on this 14th &cy of February, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioners, who have worked for more than 30 years as Ganynosn seeks a relief that the petitioners being permanent gangnian be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the aihatt-isgarh Shoskiya 5evak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyani, 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule(forAort'F.R.')56. 2. Aceording to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, os defined under Rule 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rutes, 1979 (for short 'the Rules, 1979'), framed under Art-icle 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permaient employee the petitioner would retire on attainting -t+ie age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit -Hiat the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in W.P. No. 108/2005 (Govind Vs. State of Chhatt'isgarh & others) and other connected matters. 4. Learned counsel oppearing for the respondents/S'tate does not dispute the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioners. 5. The respondents are at liberty to consider the facts of -the case osto whether the petitioners have completed 15 years of service as gomgman. In the event, it is found that they have completed 15 years of service, the case shall be govemed by the decision of this Court- in Sovind Vs. State of Gihatt-isgarh and o-thers (supra). 6. Accordingly, the petitioners, who are permcment gou'igman, are entitled to retire on att'aining the age of 62 years in aecordance with the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhash