^^- ^^-^- ^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.fS)No. ^ /20io SiNGLEBENCH PETITIONER / / Narayan Lodhi ^-O S/o.- late Shri Mohanlal Lodhi Aged about O ..<()'^.-' . 25 years, R/o.-Village-Kalayapur, ,Tahsil- \ ..•••''^?n\° Dongargarh ,Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^v.^""^-' ^•-•' ^<^.y ^ ^b' VERSUS ^ ^ RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Public Works Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur,(C.G.) ^^^w/ ^>~?-::€^' 2) Chief Engineer (Administration), Office Engineer- in-Chief, P.W.D., Raipur(C.G.) 3) Executive Eingineer, Public Works Department, Division, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The__ab^v^-n^KnA^ ^4FX fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION fS) No. 26 of2010 Narayan Lodhi. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WD1A SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotrLA Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07th day of January, 2010) The father of the petitioner, who was working as permanent Gangman^ in Dongargarh Sub Division in the Public Works Department^ died in harness on 12.06.2008. The petitioher, being the son, made an application on 18.07.2008 and thereafter on 24.06.2009 (Annexure P/3) for appointment on compassionate basis in place of his father. The respondent-authorities, by order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexyre P/5) rejected the application ofthe petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner namely Mohan Lal Lodhi^ was not a permanent Gangman in work-charged establishment. Shri Majumdar^ leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is not based on factual matrix. Admittedly, the father -of the petitioner has worked for about 36 years in the department. From the letter dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Executive Engineer, Khairagarh, addressed to the petitioner^ it reveals that the father ofthe petitioner was a permanent gangman. Shri Majumdar relies on the decision of this Court in Govind & Others v. State ofC.G. & Others in order to support his contention and prays for direction to the respondents to consider the ' 2007 (2) CGLJ 29 ^ 6. petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis as there is no other reason for rejecting the applicationpfthe petitioner. Per contra, Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the application of the petitioner was rejected not on any other ground but on the ground that the deceased employee was not a permanent gangman. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the father of the petitioner was a permanent Gangman in the work charged establishment and as such^ denial of grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is without any basis and wifhout verification ofthe 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. Admittedly^ the application of the petitioner has not beeh rejected on any other ground except the grbund that he was not a permanent Gangman in the work charged establishment. The question with regard to defmition ofpermanent Gangman came into consideration before this Court in the matter of Govind (supra). This Court, afiter having considered all the aspects observed as under: "15. Thereafiter, 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. (xxvii) in Annexure-I, (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 employee" are the same under the provisions of the Rules, 1976 and that of the Rules, 1979. In Rules, 1979, the 'permanent employee' was defmed in Rule 2(c) as a workcharged employee who has completed 15 years ofservice on or after 1.1.1974. Reading the circulars dated 14.6.1974 and 29.9.1975, Rule 2(h) ofthe Rules, 1976, Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 1976 fe^J ^y^s^., .^s"ss\ % ^sy ^) Annexure 1 to Rules 1977 and the defmition enshrined in Rule 2(b) and in Rule 2(c) i.e. 'permanent employees9 under Rules, 1979 together^ it clearly follows that the permanent gangmen are govemed 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 Act, 1967, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki- Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1999 (M.P. ActNo. 13 of 1999), published in the Gazette (Extraordinary) on 29th April, 1999, provides for age ofretirement to the Class IV govemment serv^ants on attaining the age of 62 years." The contention of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was a permanent gangman, however, the petitioner has not adduced any documentary evidence in support of his contention and as such, the petitioner would be entitled to relief only if it is found that the father of the petitioner was a permanent gangman on verification of the facts by the respondent authorities. In view of the foregoing, the respondent-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate basis, subject to verification offacts, in accordance with law and in light ofthe observations made hereinabove. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit s^