GOVIND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of matters (W.P. Nos. 108/2005, 150/2005, 350/2005, 454/2005, 610/2005, 846/2005, 908/2005, 909/2005, 979/2005, 980/ 2008, 1001/2008, 1026/2005, 1039/2005, 3944/2008, 4542/2005, 4654/2005, 5668/ 2005, 5746/2005, 483/2006, 650/2006, 697/2006, 1980/2006, 2767/2006. 2768/2006, 2769/2006, 2770/2006, 2771/2006, 2917/2006, 3030/2006, 3938/2006, 4693/2006, 4694/2006, 5446/2006, 6256/2006, 6309/2006, 6686/2006, 501/2004 and 4476/2006), the petitioners, who have worked for more than 15 years as gangmen seek a relief that the petitioners being permanent gangmen be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh 5 Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam. 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule (for short 'F.R.').

(2.) The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were employed as gangmen. According to teamed counsel for the petitioners they attained the status of permanent employees, as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules, 1979'), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permanent employee the petitioners would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act. 1967.

(3.) Shri Ashok Das Vaishnav, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Shri Anoop Mazumdar, Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Shri Rahul Birthery, Shri Ashok Soni, Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri Ashok Patil and Shri Abhijit Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as gangmen as workcharged employees as defined under Rule 2(h) of the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') and the petitioners have attained the status of the permanent employee under Rule 2(C) of the Rules 1979 after having completed 15 years of service. It was further contended that the same issue as to whether gangmen shall be governed by the same policy for superannuation, as applicable to class IV Government employees, came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Vishnu and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2006-II-LLJ- 1135 (FB). The learned Full Bench, having considered all the aspects came to the conclusion that the service of the gangmen are governed by the rules applicable to the workcharged and contingency employees, eventhough the gangmen are not included in the Schedule of the Rules, 1976 and the age of superannuation is 62 years as other class IV employees of the State Government, because they are in comparable category.