^^M'^-i ^ Dl^@.tffi SiiNVLt 8ENK <- i- /<7Zr ^. 1NTHE HjGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER vsl^'iS^ ?^'Y_ ^SJ-'^**' '...•'''"/ ---^'Q-'--' ••^^nl^ IW<"1''^-!-'"" ..g'fl-" RESPONDENTS W.P.(S) No.Sci73/2007 Shrawan Kumar Kanwar, S/o. Late Shishupal Sirdar (Kanwar), aged about 33 years, R/o. Village Bamhani, Post Office : Dhangaon, Tahsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Public Work Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) ^•" 1. -r^.-^y]^ '""' ^ ^" 6' •^. ^2. Superintendent Engineer, Public Work Department, Circle Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^-3. Executive Engineer, Pubiic Work Department, Khairagarh Division, 1 Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ WR1TPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. °b^ vl>^ HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH; BILASPUR yVRiT_PETITiON_(S)_NO,2S73_OF_20Q7 Shrawan Kumar Kanwar Versus State of Chhattissarh & PETITiONER RESPONDENTS (Writ petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Salish K. Agniholri, u. Shri Anoop Majumdar, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, D-if. Adv. GeneraS forthe State. ORDERJORAI-) (Passed on this 9th day of September, 2009) 1. Heard tearnea' counsef for the Darties. 2. The father of the petifioner, who was working as permanent Gangman, as is evident from the seryice book died in harness on 3-12-2001. Tne peiitioner, besng the son, made an applfcation for appointmem on compassionate basis in place of his father. The respondent-auihorifos Infoimed the petitioner {hat the father of the petitioner was not a permanent gangman. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the peiitioner submits that the rejection of t'ne application of ihe petitioner te not based on factuai mairix. Admittedly, the father of the petliioner, after compiettng 15 years of service asGangman, was made pennanent Gangman, as ss evicient from the servlce book. Learned counsel relies on the decision of this Court rendered i" Gov'nd & Others v. SSaSe o? C.G. & Others', 'n order lo supDort his contenlion and p?avs for ouashin.Q of the impuaned order and further prays for direction to the respondents lo consider the pet'rtjoner for appointment on compassionate basis as there is no other raason fw rejecting the applicationofth®petitioner. 4. Per contra, Shri Thakur, ieamed Panet Lawyer appearing for the State/respondente sufcsnits that the applicatfon of the petitioner was rejected not on any other ground but on the ground that the father of the petitioner is not a permanent gangman. Thus, the petitione!' was not entitied to be considered for appointment on compassionaie basis. 5. Having heard learned counse! appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident from the servioe record that the faiher of the petitioner was a pennanent ' 2007 (2) CGU 29 6. •?- 9. Gangman in the work charged estabiishment and, as such, the impugned aciion of the respondent-authority te withouf any basis and without verification of ihe facts invoived in ihe present case. There is no quarrel on the point that if a permanent gangman m the work charged estabfehmenl dies in harness, as per poiicy, one of the dependent of the deceased emptoyee wouid be entitted to consideration for cwnpassionale appointment. The question with regard to definition of permanent Gangman came into consideration before this Court in Govind (supra). This Court, after having considered ali the aspecis obseri/ed as under: "15. Thereafter, in ihe Madhya Pradesh Worteharged and Contingency Paid Empioyees R&vfeion of Pay Ru'es, 1977, framed under the proviso to Artiote 309 of the ConsSiSution of india, the post of gangmen was shcwn at seria! No. (xxvi!) sn Annexure-i, (isnder Rute 3), under the coiumn "name of the post heid by a workoharged or contingency paid empioyee". The definition of fhe 'contingency paid emptoyee" and "workcharged emptoyee" are the same under the provisions of Ihe Ruies, 1976 and that of the Ruies, 1979. in Rules, 1979, the 'permanent emptoyee' was defined in Ruie 2(e) as a worteharged empioyee who has compieted ISyearsofseroice on or after 1.1.1974. Reading the circulare dated 14.6.1974 and 29.8.1975, Ruie 2(h) of the Ruies, 1976, Rula 8 of the Rules, 1S76 Annexure 1 to Ruies 1977 and the definitfon enshrined in Ruto 2(b) and in Ruie 2(c) i.e. 'permanent employees' under Rules, 1979 . together, it ctearty foliovre that the pennanent gangmen are governed by the same poiioy for superannuation, as fe appilcabie to the Ciass !V govsrnmenl empioyees. it is not in dispute Ihat Ihe amendment to F.R. 56 under the Acf, 1967, as amended by ihe iviadhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarahilu-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1999 flW.P. Act No. 13 of 1898), puUished in the Gazette (Extraordinary) on 29 Apri!, 19S9, provides for age of retirement to the Ciass IV aovemmenl sen/ants on attainina theageof62 yeare." Applying the well-settled prindples of !aw to the facte of the oase, the State shalt consider the fact asto whether the Tather of the petitioner was a permanent Gartgman in the work charged estabhshment, in the llght of decision ofthis Court rendered in Govind (supra). Thereaflw, the Slate is directed to consider the entittement of the petiBoner for compassfonate appointment, in aocordance with the poiicy. in view of foregomg, the petition is ailowed to above. No order asio costs. Thakur the exient sndfeafed Sd/- Satish KAgnihotti Judge