-4 i^SW' i@ tp.A- c^- }^^-Q IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fSrNO. £2^?>3 /2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Raju Prasad Dewangan, S/o Late Shri Umed'fAged about 35 years, R/o Behind Jai Mauli Complex, Kali Nagar Pandrari, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Public Works Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /2. The Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Raipur Circle, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department-1, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS ,t?^ '•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6233Q008 PETtTIONER Raju Prasad Dewangan RESEONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. Gsnerai for the State. ORDER (OFSAU (Passod on this 8th day of September, 2008) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was working as permanent Gangman, as is evident from the service book died in harness on 03-09-2006(Annuexure P/4 is Death Certificate). The petitioner, being the son, made an application for appointment on compassionate basis in ptace of his father. The respondent- authorities informed the petitioner that the father of the petitionsr was not a permanent gangman. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is not based on factua! matrix. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, after comptetino 15 years of service as Gangman, was made permanent Gangman, as is evident from the service book. Learned counset relies on the decision of this Court rendered in Govind & Others v. State of C.6. & 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 appiication ofthe petitioner. 2Q07(2)CGLJ29 : .„ •-A.. a | 2 4. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that the appiication of 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. 5. Having heard tearned counsei appeSring for the parties, perused the 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 action of the respondent-authority is without any basis and without verification of the facts involved in the present case. 6. 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 Gangman 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, 1977, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the post of gangmen was shown at serial No. (xxvli) In Annexure-1, (under Rule 3), under the column "name of the post held by a workcharged or contingency paid employee". The definition of the 'contingency paid employee" and "workcharged amployee" are the same under the provisions of the Rules, 1976 and that of the Rutes, 1979. In 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 1.1.1874. Reading the cireulars dated 14.6.1874 and 29.9.1975, Rule 2(h) ofthe Rules, 1978, Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 1976 Annexure 1 to Rules 1977 and the definition enshrined in Rule 2(b) and in Rule 2(c) i.e. 'permanent employees' under Rules, 1979 together, it clearly follows that the permansnt gangmen are governed by the same policy for superannuation, as is applicable to the Class IV govemment employees. It is not in dispute that the amendment to F.R. 56 under the Thakur Act, 1967, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1S99 (M.P. Act No. 13 of 1&99), published in the Gazette (Extraordinary) on 29th Aprit, 1999, provides for age of retirement to the CIass IV government servants on attaining the age of 62 years." Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the State shall consider the fact asto whether the father of the petitioner was a permanent GangmaTi in the work charged estabiishment, 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 policy. In view of foregoing, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge