Cgw’aé , G9 BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT S/o.- Late Shri Rameshwar Aged about 19 years, R/o.- Viliage- Khairjhiti, P.O‘ Dumardihkhurd, Tahsil & Distt— Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through therSecre‘tary Public Works Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur,(C.G.) 2) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division, Rajnandgaon, Distt— Rajnandgaon (CG) WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDlA. RHASPUR §§ngka gmmh PETITIONER Tuieshwar Sinha HIGH COURT OF CHHA’IT‘ESGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition {S} No. 6148 of2009 Petitioner TuleShwar Smha Varsus Rasponcknts State of Chhattisgarh 8a others W’RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K Agnihotri J.) Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocat€ for the psti‘iioner. Shri N, N. Roy, Pand Lawysr for thE respondents. 0 R D E R (Oral) (PaSSEd on This 28m day ofJanualy, 2010) With 1:116 consent of learnsd counsel apearing for the parties the matter is heard finally. On 27. 10.2009, on the submission of leanled counsel appearing for the petitioner that fhe issue involved in this case is squarely Icovered by thedecision of mis Court dated 19.6.2009 in Writ Petition (S) no. 4480 of 2006 (Sun. Puna Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), notice was issued to the respondents] State, hldicatgng asto Why the. instant petition may not be decided in accordance with the order passed in Smt. Puna Bai (supra), The respondents have flied return on 15. 12.2009, wherein it is stated that the father of the petitioner was working as Plumber in Sub Division No.1, Rajnandgaon, who died in harness on 30.7.2007. Thereafter, Smt. Fekan Bai (mother of the petitioner) tiled an application on 27.4.2008 (Annexnre P/‘dr; for grant of compassionate appointment, which was rejected on 16.5.2008 (Annexure R/ 1} on the ground that the father of the petitioner was only a labour. Neither he was regularized in work charged establishment nor he was declared as a member of the regular work charged establishment. The respondents] State have not ()A p \Ifk _2/ filed reply, pomtedly mdicating astc Whe’rhsr the instant peti’tion is cavemd by the order passed in Smt. Puma Bai (supra). 4-. Leanied counsel appearing for' the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner late Rameshwar Sinha was working in permanent gang as Plumber since 23‘ 11.1981 (Annexure P/ l), who died in harness on 30.7.2007 (Annexure P/Q). Thereafter, the petitioner flied an application on 13.8.2007 (Annexure P/S} for grant of compassionate appointment. As the earlier application of the petitioner was not decided by the concerned authorities, the petitioner again made a representation on 27.4.2008 (Annexure P/4). 91 The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that. the father of the petitioner had been continuously working in the department for about 26 years. In View of the decision of this Court in Govind 8a others V. State of C.G. 8r, Otherslp, the father of the petitioner being a permanent Gangman, was in the work charged establishment, as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. 6. I have heard learned counsel appealing for the parties and pelused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The law is well settled that no compassionate appointment. can be made do hers the government policy’ as the compassionate appointment has been held as back door entry and de hors the constitutional scheme of the employment. However, if the father of the petitioner was )a permanent Gangman, the respondents/State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with its policy and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, in the light of the order passed by this Court m Smt. Puna Bai (supra). 8. In View of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed. of. Na, order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur 1 2007 (2) cow 29