HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S No 4480 of 2006
Smt Puna Bai
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 The State of Chhattisgarh
2 Engineer-in-Chief
3 Executive Engineer
4 Sub Divisional Officer PWD
...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
! Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents
CORAM : Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J
Dated:19/06/2009
: Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
ORDER (ORAL)
(Passed on 19th day of June, 2009)
1. The husband of the petitioner, who was working as
permanent Gangman, as is evident from the service book
(Annexure P/2) died in harness on 20.10.2005. The
petitioner, being the widow, made an application on
14.03.2006 for appointment on compassionate basis as Labour
(Reja) in place of her husband. The respondent-authorities,
by order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure R/1) rejected the
application of the petitioner on the ground that the husband
of the petitioner namely Shri Ram Lal Yadav, was not a
permanent Gangman in work-charged establishment.
2. Shri Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the rejection of the application of
the petitioner is not based on factual matrix. Admittedly,
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 service book. Shri
Anthony relies on the decision of this Court in Govind &
Others v. State of C.G. & Others1 in order to support his
contention and prays for quashing of the impugned order
dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure P/4) and further prays for
direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate basis as there is no other
reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner.
3. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing
for the State/respondents relies on its return dated 13th
November, 2006 and submits that the application of the
petitioner was rejected not on any other ground but on the
ground that the deceased employee was not regular
(permanent) as is clear from Annexure R/1. Thus, the
petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment
on compassionate basis.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
perused the pleadings 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
work charged establishment and as such, the impugned order
dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent-
authority is without any basis and without verification of
the facts involved in the present case.
5. 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 been rejected on any other ground except the ground
that he was not a permanent Gangman in the work charged
establishment.
6. The question with regard to definition of permanent
Gangman came into consideration before this Court in the
matter of Govind (supra) . This Court, after having
considered all the aspects observed as under:
“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 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 defined in
Rule 2(c) as a workcharged employee who
has completed 15 years of service on or
after 1.1.1974. Reading the circulars
dated 14.6.1974 and 29.9.1975, Rule 2(h)
of the Rules, 1976, Rule 8 of the Rules,
1976 Annexure 1 to Rules 1977 and the
definition enshrined in Rule 2(b) and in
Rule 2(c) i.e. `permanent employees’
under Rules, 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 Shashkiya Sevak
(Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam,
1999 (M.P. Act No. 13 of 1999), published
in the Gazette (Extraordinary) on 29th
April, 1999, provides for age of
retirement to the Class IV government
servants on attaining the age of 62
years.”
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 work charged
establishment, the petitioner is entitled to be considered
for appointment on compassionate basis.
8. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The
impugned letter/order dated 29.05.2006 (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 asto costs.
JUDGE