4 smGLE §EN§H p ' Cgw’oZ’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I'TISGARH AT: BILASPUR / W.P. (S) No. é 3 3 a OF 2009 PETITIONER: Chait Ram aged 3o ye’ars, son of late Mukhi Ram Kanwar (Rath1ya) res1dfnt of v111age & post offlce Kotmer, P S & tahs1l Kartala, d1str1ct Korba (C G ) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department of Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B/R) Korba (C.G.). (3) Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (B/R) Sub Division Bhaisma, district Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE’§26 OF THE cONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3 " [I PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6390 of 2009 Chait Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Somnath Verma counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pravin Das Dy. G.A for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA ORDER (27.8.2010) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.07.2000y‘r‘1 I; Annexure P—1) passed by S.D.O, Pubiic Works Department (B/R) Korba’? ‘1 ‘ (respondent No.3 herein) dismissing the ciaim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of his father iate Mukhi Ram Kanwar who was working as gang—man with the respondents sincé ‘ i 20.06.1983. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner who was working as gang-man in the office of respondent No.3 since 2O 06 1983 died on 1402 2007 He submits that the deceased empioyee had completed 24 years of serVIce as gang man and thereford‘j I In View of the Judgment of this Court In the matter of Govmd and others ‘ m v. State of Chhattisgarh,and others reported in 2007 (2) CGLJ 29 according to which after compietion of 15 years of service as gang-man‘ i he wouid be deemed to be a permanent gang—man in the light‘of Rule 2 ”l (c) of the C.G. Public Works Department Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules 1976. He submits that once the deceased empioyee was a permanent gang-man; petitioner has every right to get the compassionate appointment He‘ placed reliance on the deCISIon of this Court In an Identical case being W P (S) No 4480/2006 Smt Puna Bal v State of Chhattlsgarh and others where this Court has directed for conSIderIng the case of the. petitioner therein for compassionate appointment. / , /0’ >J ( ¢2» On the other hand counse! for the respondents opposes the ‘ contention of the counsel of the petitioner and submits that as the father} of the petitioner was not a permanent gang—man in the Work Charge Estabiishment; the State Government is fuliy justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material availabie on 3. 4. record. The question with regard to the definition of permanent gang—mart ” ‘ came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Govind and others (supra) wherein considering all the aspects of the case it has been observed as under: 5. 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. (XXVii) in Annexure-I, (under Rule ‘ i 3), under the coloumn ”name of the post held by a ‘ ‘ workcharged or contingency paid employee”. The ‘ r ‘ definition of the “contingency paid employee” and “workcharged employee” are the same under the provisions of the Rules, 1976 and that of the Rules, 7979. In Rules, 1979, the ’permanent employee’ was defined in Rule 2(0) as a workcharged employee who has completed 15 years of service on or after 1.1.1974. Reading the circulars dated 14.06. 1974 and 29.9. 1975, Rule 2(h) of the Rules, 1976, Ru/e 8 of the Rules, 1976 Annexure—l to Rules 1977 and the definition enshrined to .Rule 2 (b) and in Rule 2 (c) i.e. ’permanent employees’ under Ru/es,1979 together, it clearly follows that-the permanent gangmen are governed by the same policy for superannuation, as is applicable to the class-IV government employees. It is not in dispute that the amendment to F.R.56 under the Act, 1967, as ‘ amended by the Madhya Pradesh ShaskiyaSevak- (Adhivarshiki—Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1999 (MP Act No. 13 of 1999), published in the Gazette (extraordinary) on 29m April, 1999, provides for age of retirement to the class—IV government servants on attaining the age of 62 years. Lu Further in the case of Smt. Puna Bai v. The State of Chhattisgarh and ‘ L ,I/A{ thers (supra) this Court has held as under: / .X w ‘\ , V ‘ o : -3’ ”Having heard learned counsel appearing for the panies, perused the p/eadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident from the service record ‘ ‘ (Annexure P/2) that the husband of the petitioner was a permanent gangman in the Workcharged Establishment and as such, the impugned order dated 29.5.2006 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent-authority is Without any basis and Without verification of the facts involved in the present case. There is no quarrel on the point that if a permenant gangman in, the workcharged 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 been rejected on any other ground except the ground that he was not a permanent gangman in the workcharged establishment. 7. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, and further that the husband of the petitioner was a permanent gangman in the workcharged establishment, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. 8. ln view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned letter/order dated 29.5.2006 (Annexure P/4) based on letter dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure R/1) is quashed. The respondent-authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate basis in accordance with law and in light of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. " ' l t . i 6. lt is not disputed by the respondents that father of the petitionetl was working as gangman since 20.6.1983 and died in harness on 14.2.2007. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointmeht has been rejected on 20.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) only on the ground that hisi father was not a regular gangman under workcharged establishment 7. In View of the aforesaid legal position, the petition is allowed and the order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Respondents—2 authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh fog i ' ‘ i I i appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law and invthw‘ . ‘ ‘ light of observations made above. No order as to costs rig/LL , 3 // SNDWJakeY g ' ’ . - ker ?Y\““ 3“dge // . , ‘ " ‘ ‘ ‘ H