BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M M03 ‘ A \\\ % k9. WERSUS K c» ‘ / ‘ RESPONDENTS 1) State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary Public Works Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur,(C.G.) 2f, Executive Eingineer, Public Works Department, Balod Division,Balod,Distt. Durg (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. @ PETITIONER ‘4 ‘f ( wéhqs‘rxw /Luman Singh Nirmalkar Slo.— late Shri Domar Singh I f W WAQ. 4‘” Nirmalkar, Aged about 22 years, ..... R/o.- Vil|age—Tawera,TahsH— a @9601 v4 / \k Gunderdehipistwurg (C.G.) M H!GH COURT OF CHHA'ITQSGARH : BELASPUR WRIT PE'HTION §S§ NQ.153 OF 2008 Vergus (Wiit peiiiion under Arficfe 226 of the Consfituiion of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shn’ Satish K. Agnihoiri, J. Present :- Shri Anoop Majumdar, counsel for the peiiiicmer. Shri Y.S. Thakur! Dy. Adv. Genera: for the Sfaie. ORDER ORAL {Passed 0n this 9 day of September. 2099,) Heard learned counse! far the parti$. ,_W\N The father of the petitioner, whc was working as permanent Gangman, as is evident from ihe service book died in harness on 4-11-2996. The petitioner, being the son, made an application for appoinimeni on compassionate basis in piaoe of his father. The respondent-auihoriiies, by order dated 3-7-2307 (Annexure P/6) rejected the appiicaiion of the peiitioner on .the ground thaf ihere is no provision to grant compassionaie appointment to ihe dependants of the deceased empioyee i.e. gangman. , Learned counsel appearing for the peiiiioner submits that the rejeoiion of the appiicaiion of the petitioner is not based on factuai matrix. Admittediy, thelfather of the petitioner, after compieting 15 years of . service as Gangman; was made permanent Gangman, as is evident from the service book. Learned counsei relies on the decision of this Court rendered in Govind & Others v. State of C.G. & Others’, in order to support his contention and prays for quashing of the impugned order and further prays for direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis as there is no other reason for rejecting the appiioation of the petitioner. PETITIONER Luman Singh Nirmaiicar RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another i 2007' (2) CGLJ 29 \.\ 3W Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned. Pane! Lawyel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the application of :he petitioner was rejected not on any other ground but on the gmund- that there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased emptoyee i.e. gangman. Thus, the petitioner was not emitted to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the I pleadings and documents appended thereto; it is evident from the service record that the father of the petitioner was a permanent Gangman in the work charged establishment and, as such, the impugned order dated 3-7-2007 (Annexure PIG) passed by the respondent-authority is without any basis and without veritication of the facts involved in the present case. There is no quarrel on the point that if a permanent gangman in the work charged establishment dies in harness, as per policy, one of the dependent of the deceased employee would be entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment. The question with regard to definition of permanent Gangrnan came into consideration before this Court in Govind (supra). This Court, after having considered all the aspects observed as under: “15. Thereafter. in the Madhya Pradesh Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1W7. framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of lndia, the post of gangmen was g shown at serial No. ()orvii) in Annexure-l, (under Rule 3), under the coiumn "name of the post held by a workcharged or contingency paid employee”. The definition of the ‘contingency paid employee” and “workcharged employee” are the same under the provisions of/the Rules, 1976 and that of the Rules, 1979. ln Rules, 1979, the ‘permanent employee' was defined in Rule 2(c) as a workcharged employee who has completed 15 years of service on or after 1.1.1974.'Reading the circulars dated 14.6.1974 and 29.9.1975, Ruie 2(h) of the Rules, 1976, Ruie 8 of the ‘Rul'es, 1976 Annexure 1 to Rules 1977 and the definition enshrined in Rule 2(h) and in Rule 2(c)* i.e. ‘permanent employees’ under Rules, 1979 together, it clearly follows that the permanent gangmen ave governed by the same policy for superannuation, as is applicable to the Class IV government employees. lt is not in dispute that the amendment to F.R. 55 under ' the Act, 1967, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh. Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sans'nodhan i Adhiniyam, in the Gazette 1999 (Extraordinary) (MP. Act No 13 on of 29'” 1999), April, published 1999, provides for age of retirement to the Class lV government servants on attaining the age of 62 years." Appwmg the weii-setiieci pancmies of iaw {o the fack of We case *h$ Siaie shai conSIder the faci asio wheiher me father of the peimoner we” a nerrraneni Gamman in the work cf:arged esiablishment m ihe xg‘? cf decision sf this Cour: {endered m Gownd (sums) Themafier we oiaie Is wrecked to cansuier t‘xe entitiemeni of the pcimoner for compassmnate appomtment, m accordance wiih the poncy. in View of foregoing we aeti’iicn is ailcwed i0 the exient indicated acove The impugned 5e‘teri0rder dateti 3 72007 (Annexure PIS) Is Thakur quashed No order aeto cosis sw- Saush K Agmhot“ Judge