H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILfl,SPUR VrfRiT PETIT'ON (S) No._4480of2006 PETiTiONER : Smt. PunaBai W/o Late Shri Ram Lal Yadav, aged about 46 years, Resident of Ward No. 15, Post Bemetara, Tahsii Bemetara, District Dyrg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Near "Raj Bhawan" Pubiic \ ''•} 3. Executive Engineer, Pubtic VVorks Department, Dlvision Bemetar, Tahsil semetar, District Durg (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisiona! Officer, P.W.D. Sub Division Bemetara, Bemetara, Dlstrict Durg (C.G.) WBiJ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226Q27 OFTHE CONSTiTUTION OF INDI i: Hon'bls iati: Present: Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms, Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/'respondents. 7 (Passed on 19"' day of June, The husband of the petitioner, who was working as permanent Gangman, as is evident from t'ne sen/ice book (Annexure P/2) died in harness on 20.10.2005. The petitioner, being the widow, made an appilcation on 14.03.2006 for appolntment on compassionate basis as Labour (Reja) in place of her husband. T'ne respondsnt-authorities, by order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure R/1) rejected the appiication of the )etitloner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner namely Shri Ram Lal Yadav, was not a permanent Gangman in work-charged establishment. --Shn Anthony, iearned counsel appearing for t'ne petitioner submits that the rejection-ofthe appiication oft'ne petitioner is not based on factual matrix. Admittediy,'the husband of the petitioner, after completing 15 years of service as Gangman, was made permanent Gangman, as is evident from Annexure P/2, i.e. the sen/ice book. Shri Antiiony reiies on t'ne decision of this Court in Govind & Others v. State of C.G. & Others m order fo support his contention and prays for quashing ofthe impugned order dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure P/4) and further prays Tor direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment 1 2007 (T} CGLJ 29 on compassionate basis as there is no other reason for rejecting the applicatlon ofthe petitioner. 3. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned Panei Lawyer appearing for the »tate/respondents relies on its return dated 13 Novem'oer, 2006 and submits that the application of the petitioner was rejected not on any other ground but on the ground that the deceased empiovee was not regular (permanent) as is clear from Annexure R/1. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate oasis. 4. Having heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, pSeadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident service record (Annexure P/2) that t'ne husband of the petitioner permanent Gangrnan in t'ne work charged establishment ani the impugned order dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure P/4) passed respondent-authority is without any basis and wit'nout vsrifii facts involved in t'ne present case. 5. There is no quarrel on the point that if a permanent gangman in the work charged establishme.nt dies in harness, as per policy, one of t'ne dependent of the deceased employee would be entitled to consideration for compasslonate appointment. Admittedly, the appiication of the petmoner has not been rejectsd on any other ground except the ground that he was not a permanent Gangman in the vrork charged estabiishn ;t from the was a as sucn, by the ation of t'ne e question with regard to deflnition of permanent Gangman came consideration before this Court in the matter of Gt is Court, after havlng considered ali the aspects as under: Pr; .> "15. Thereafter, in and Contingsncy Pa'id Emptoyees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of india, the post of gangmen was shown al seriai No. (xxvii) in Annexure-1, (under Rule 3), under the coiumn "name of the post held by a workcharged or contlngency psid employee". The definition of the 'contingency paid employee" and "workcharged employee" are the same under the provisions of the Ruies, 1976 and that of the Ruies, 1979. In Rules, 1979,. the 'permanent empioyee' was defined in Rule 2(c) as a workcharged empiovee who has compieted 15 vsars of service on.or after 1.1 .1974. Reading t'ne cireuiars dated 14.6.1974 and 29.9.1975, Rute2(h) ofthe Rutes, 1976,Rute8oftheRufes, 1976 Annexure 1 to Ruies 1 977 and the definition enshrined in Ruie 2(b) and In Rule 2(c) i.e. 'permanent employees' under Ruies, 1979 together, it cieariy follows that the permanent gangmen are governed by ths same poiicy for superannuation, as is applicabte to the Ciass )V pvernment employees. !t is not in dispute that the lendment to F.R. 56 under the Act, 1967, as amended by the M.adhya Pradesh Shas'nkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1999 (M.P. Act No. 13 of 1999), published in the Gazette (Extraordinary) on 29 Apri!, 1999, provides for age of retirement to the Class IV aovemment seroants on attaining the age of 62 years." "-S AA>' /-"v\; Applying the weil-settied principies of !aw to the facts of the case, and further that the husband of the petitioner was a permanent Gangman In the work charged establishment, the petitioner is entitled to be consldered for appointment on compassionate basjs. In view of t'ne foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned istter/order dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure PM) based on letter dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure R/1) is quashed. The respondent-authos'Sies shali consider the cass of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate basis in accordance wlth law and in light of the obsep/ations made hersinabove. No ordsr asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judgs &• ATTil't