BEFQBE HON‘BLE HIGH COURT OF EHQAT'TISGARHL'AT Vi” BILASPUR q) w.P.(S)No. )g/‘Q 12008 W “a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOE K/\\ /""\ .e‘ C 0 MM w (>4, ,v I /y a ;‘rv >,,/ .. . . . . . , r 4 PETlTlONER / Taman about 18 \ \31) b Slo late Shn Harlram Aged 0) (g3) years, R/o.— Vlllage-Bharrltola , ,Tahsli Dalli \ wfwv b. Rajhra,Distt.Durg (C.G.) \ w» 1 W " VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh J Through the Secretary Public WorksrDepartment. D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur,(C.G.) Executive Eingineer, Public Works Depahment, Balod Division,Balod,Distt. Durg (C.G) PETI I IQNER n Tama Lal Veisus sate o Chhattisgarh & another f (Writ petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench: Hon‘ble Shri 'Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the Stat. (Passed on this day of September, 2009) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was working as ermanent Gangman. as is evident from the srvice book died in harness on 04-05-2001 (Annuexure P/2 is Death Certificate). The petitioner. being the son, made an application for appointment on compassionate basis in place of his father. The respondet— authorities informed the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was not a permanent gangman. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the appiioation of the petitioner is not based on factuai matrix. Admittedly. the father of the petitioner, after completing 15 years of service as Gangman, was made permanent Gangman. as is evident from the service book. Learned counseirelies on the decision of this Court rendered in Govind 8. Others v. State of C.G. & Others1, 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 application of the petitioner. 4. Per contra. Shri Thakur. teamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that the application of ‘ ’2007 (2) CGLJ 29 \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR wRQT PETlTiON iSi I§0z180f2008 RESPONDENTS e ORDER {ORAL} 9 p e n \ the petitioner was rejected not on any other ground but on the ground that the father of the petitioner is not a permanent gangman. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. Having heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings 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 action of the respondent~authority is without any basis and without verification 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 emptoyee would be entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment. The question with regard to defrnition of permanent Gangman came into consideration before this Court in Govind (supra). This Court, after having considered all the aspects observed as under: “1 5, Thereafter, in the Madhya Pradesh Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, framed under the proviso to Artiste 309 of the Constitution of India, the post of gangmen was shown at serial No. (xxvit) in Annexure-l, (under Rule 3). under the column “name of the post held by a workcharged or contingency paid employee“. The definition of the ‘contingency paid empioyee"'and "workcharged employee" are the same under the provisions of the Rules, 1976 and that of the Rules, 1979. In Ruies, 1979. the ‘permanent employee’ was defined in Rule 2(o) 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, Rule 2(h) of the Rules, 1976, Rule B of the Rules, 1976 Annexure 1 to Rules 1977 and the definition enshrined in Rule 2(b) and in Rule 2(c) i.e. 'permanent empioyees’ under Rules, 1979 together, it clearly folIOWs that the permanent gangmen are governed by the same policy for superannuation, as is applicable to the Class lV government employees. lt is not in dispute that the amendment to F.R. 56 under the Act, 1957, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1999 (MP. Act No. 13 of 1999), published in the Gazette provides for Applying the well-settled principies of iaw to the facts of the case. the Sate $hali aonsider the fact asto whether the father of the petitioner was a permanent Gangman in the work charged establishment, in the light of decision of this Court rendered in Govind (supra). Thereafter, the State is directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. in accordance with the poiicy. in view of foregoing, the petition is ailowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. ‘ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge a *x