Singls Banch IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 9 O of 2005 PETITIONER: ^ ( Bhanvar Singh Gond B^B^^ Aged about 58 years. y S/0 Shri Dhanau Gond Village Pounsari, Post- Karmada, pfi.^"7te.4^"""" ....r""""" Tah.Baloda Bazar,Distt. Raipur. (C.G. ^J^sy .....-•••"h > ?te^^<>-ff'\: ^-\"0 -' •V VERSUS iL'? RESPONDENTS: l.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaiy Water Resources Department Secretariat, Raipur (C,G.) 2. Sub-Divisional Officer Water Resources Department Sub-Division No.7, Baloda Bazar Distt. Raipur. (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227^ ^F__JtHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OP A WRIT IN THB NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARL ETC OR ANY OTHER DmECTlON OR ORDER T0^)0 JUSTICB IN THE MATTER. __£^^^ ^f^...^ .. _—-. '^ 311^1'^iT'^W ^i? -^i^ ^^W s^. ^.-^•'.-^ \-^ ^Pi^T^FIS^ •"g^'^l^l^ '^€t'^TT?,^rRTy M:£..^^l .(^t3^^) i^rw ^^r 3i?^?" coutisel 31/01/2005 Shri Sunil Ottwaiii, Shri Akhil Agrawal, P. L. j HeardonI.A. No. 221/: The petitioner by the order of Aiinexure P-1 by wl]|ich ser^ice with efFect from 02J petitioner had already attaiii^d years. for tlie petitioner. t&rthe State. 1005 for urgent hearing, It is allowed. |iistaiit petition has challenged the the petitioner was renioved froia [05/2002 on the ground that fhe fhe age of superaanuation LC. 55 Leained counsel for tl4 had subsequently taken the fhe age ofsuperaanuation ia been enhaaced to 60 years. Annexure P-6. Leamed coun^ fliat snnilarly situatecl gailg remstated aiid passed suitabl^ dated 16/08/2004 m their ca^ Leamed counsel for petitioner has not attaiaed Annexure P-6 even fhen 02/05/2002. Leamed courtsel for th^ the State Govei'nnient has 60 yeai's vide order Annexure I have heard leained ^Rfe^f "W^ff ^f fe^ ^N^R ^^^?^r^r bhje petitioner submits that the State ipecision dated 16/08/2004 whereby pie Water Resources Departaiient has [The above order has beeu filed as |el for the petitioner farther subinits i4en were directed by tliis Court to be order in accordaiice witli ttie order ^es also. the petitioner subniits that fhe age of 60 years as per poUcy vide petifloner has been retired on tlje tllie respondents has not dispzited that en^iaaced the age of superaanuation to f-6. coijinsel for tlie pai'ties, Gt-PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. 3^1^?^^ ^ ^^w^ A- ^t€ y?7. NIN^S w;*iras' "s^ •^rqr^ '^flw^, f^frey ^.......M:£..s^U.^<^ ^l^-^^ (a^t^^) I^i^^ft^^il -2- Leanied coiinsel fo petitioner is graiited liberty respondents to consider his poticy vide Annexure P-6 aad by the petitioner, the same is| period m £heends ofjzistice sh^ Thus, considemig the fe and furtlier considermg tlie f^ has been enhaaced to 60 y 1149/2003 vide oider date<j respondents to reconsider tlie ain of fhe opitlion that the euj petitioner is given Uberty to the respondents for reitistateiE| withui 10 days firora today respondents within. a furfher ^ of such representation io. Anuexure P-6 aad in the Ughl iil W.P. No. 1149/2003. Wifh fhis observation/ftt ConsequenUy, I.A. No. 2( ^pfe'N ^M^I ^rfe^ xfa^K ^^Ha^l tbe ^ the petitioner subinits that if tlie to m.ake representation to flie |ase for reinstatement as per new ^n such representation beiag made to be decided within. a stipulated Ulbe served. lcts and ciix^uio.stan.ces of the case |ict that flie age of supe.raa.niiafion ^ars aiid fhis Court iii W,P. No. 29/09/2004 had dit-ected tiie :ases ofalready retired gaag men, I [1s ofjustice would be served tf fhe |iake detailed representation before mt as per poUcy vide Annexure P-6 d the saine shall be decided by th.e ^riod of four weeks froin Uie receipt Ught of chaage of poUcy vide of order dated 29/09/2004 passed petitiori. is disposed of, 1/2005 staiids disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Gt; PRJ-FS/350-12/2000-50,000. •f^ 'y -V