f ‘ "N E PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. Iéf£ /2009 L,” I Smt. Rahika Sharma D/o. Manharan Lal Sharma, aged about : 22 years, Rxk Unemployed R/o. Shiv Nagar/Rajlv Nagar Ward No kw“ w V 1, Durg, District : Durg WCTG .) . LE , VERSUS ”Through : The Secretary, L'Pijblic Works Department, ‘f’JMantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawanr The Engineer-in—Chief, Public Works Department, (B & R), Government of Chhattisgarh, Department, (B & R), Durg, w, f fa“ 6, / 1. kw,” Vt A», if State of Chhattisgarh, { RESPONDENTS Raipur (C.G.). The Superintending Engineer, Public Works ag District : Durg_(C.G.). The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (B & R), Durg, District : Durg (C.G.). V“ WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226i 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 7. g ’&,\ _ g ?5, %\, / \,J / f’4fk—v‘. §§§G§~i $5URT m3 CHH£T?§$$&RH : E§L§3PUR WRI? P§ET§T§£§N §'$’3 NG. ‘3 6E8 €3F 23G§ §ET§T§$NER £mt Rahika $hai’ma ‘u’ersufs §ESPG§K§§E§V¥S Staté m" Chha%t§3gam 3‘ §thefs {Wri’t $et§i§0ri umie! Artiale 22$i22? sf the Sawtiiwioa a? im§§ai 5§r3gie Beach : Hoa’hia Shi'i §at§sh K. Agmha‘m. J. $a'esent := Shr§ ?ushpendra Kamaf Paiez, caunsei for the petaicner. 3%m MERS. 8ha§ia, 9y. Gavt Aa§veca%e for t‘ze $€a’&e. QRQER LR5§sL ' (Fasseé 0n ihis 7t §ay 9§ Qecemben 2QQ§§ 1. Wiéh ihe consait of iearneci cmmse§ apyearmg §0¥ i‘he parka the :Je’iition is heard §§na§éy. 2. 1Leamed couase§ ap§3ea§mg far ihe peié‘ziaae: subméis ‘ihai. we mai‘ner 0f ihe §e€§tiama§ name§y; $mi, UrmEa §a§ $harmai was empieyea' as gsermaiweéii gangmaa a” i?‘ze Pasb§%s Wwkg §epagrimem i£ & R3, 3mg B§v§s§an5 §u{g. $§1e died bays 18-5-2W8 m harnass. The :geimm‘aer, %e§ag siegeradam or: wg tieceased, made aii appkaim'; §aa2ed ’i’é-?-2§§38 @Qmaxure —- $M} befere me regpamiem amhwwes §0r gram sf appoinimgm on cqmgmssianaie basis. Tha app§icai§cn of ‘éé’ae pem‘ioraer wag rajecied an the gfmmd {hat ihe moiher 6f the pamianer he. aieceaseci $mt iJrmiia 33% Shanna was not a regmar gangman h": i‘ne commgemy e5mbE§s§$ment Thu3, this §>$i€§tbn (!s i have beam? éeama£ counsei amxaag'ing $6; me parties, peruseé ihe pgeadings (aid i’he‘ ‘ciecumems apyeawé§ §§1éfem Ei is evidem tha€r ccmmuriicai§aa was sem is ‘é‘é‘aa Ch§e§ Engime? 9. rtjbsk I Wcfks §e§a?imeai mm me $ovemmem cm 2&"2-2W7' {Amexure —- W32! s€a$§ag {hex ihere ww m pmv§s§an w acwrig camgaass§enaie a§3paiMmam agamsi ihe éaaih <3§ a gangman. é. The pe€§i§ceer has pointed 34.1% 3:: epgainimem omei' da‘€e§£ 31 -5-?§9§ (Amexme — $5} iesaed by the {hen 5%eie a?‘ Med§wa Pra§es%} where§s2 eemaeessmnew raggeimmem was meée againsi: me cieai'h 6f geegmee. z h} in resmmse, Shri Ehaia, warned ccuasei aygiearmg 3‘0? ‘Ehe $tate, whiie submiYiiag that Sigma the deceasea‘ was moi a §ermaneni gangman, but a simme gangmam amt} she was nave“; reguia§§zei there was :10 previsiora i0 gmm csmgassioaa‘ia appoimmem to the éepeiaéam cf me eiéceased gawgmaa. Leite¥ daied 2?4-2a’3€35 (aimexme —- W1} c§ tha S‘ta‘ze $avemmea$ aééfessed ts €§3e ChQef Eyag’meea’, iamvicies “that ihe §e§§enaar§ts cf ymrmanem gaagman a can‘zmgewv’ es$amishmem aare emmed i0 gram o§ ccmpass§ena§e agpamimenk, but ewe? gayag‘mam wha were no‘t reguiafézw m ‘Ehe cemmgamy esiab¥is%‘sment, they commaed {o @e iabours and mar dependants, 0n ihe death of labow, are my? eiii$§t§ad k) comyassienaie appointmeat. in ‘the facis 0'? the case, i am of the View that ihena §s rao mérii. Hawever, leamed coamse? submiis imi ‘ihe §ei§i§oaa$ may ice graMed §iberw to make a fepreseia'iatizm pemting Gui mw the mother of ihe eetitiames’ was a a'eguia; gam'igamai: in ‘tae contingency es’éaméshmen‘i. in we event, fee petitiaeer hag es‘iabiEshw $ha& he? methea’ was a regmer gaegman, ihe eeetmner woaée ee em§f§eei ie gyaat c§ apgomtmem 0“: camaassienaie isas§s. Acccrdmg‘éy, the writ geemioe is d§spssed 0%. meaty ie reeewed ‘i'e ihe pe‘tbiimies“ ‘ie make appwwiaie fepfesemakiera befme me fesporidem’é au%§ma’§t§es, §a 5e advised. Sdl- Gow¥i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge