Chattisgarh High CourtLaxmi Narayan vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 16 February, 2022Author:Parth Prateem SahuBench:Parth Prateem Sahu1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 NAFR\n                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n                           WPS No. 2665 of 2012\n\n             Laxmi Narayan, S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Patle, aged\n             about 35 years, R/o village Donridih, P.S. Kashdol, Balod\n             Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.\n\n                                                                       ---- Petitioner\n                                          Versus\n     1.     State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public\n            Health       Engineering         Department,         D.K.S.       Bhawan,\n            Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.\n\n     2.     Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering\n            Department, Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.\n\n     3.     Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Division\n            Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.\n\n                                                                  ---- Respondents\n\n     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner                   : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate\n     For Respondents/State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. Advocate General-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu\n                           Order on Board\n     16.02.20221.     Petitioner's father Late Dhaniram Patle who was working as\n\n        Watchman in the Office of Sub Engineer, Public Health\n\n        Engineering, Division Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh died in\n\n        harness. Petitioner submitted an application for grant of\n\n        compassionate appointment, which was dismissed. This writ\n\n        petition is filed after rejection of his application for grant of\n\n        compassionate appointment with following relief :2"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly\n              be pleased enough to set-aside order\n              dated     06.06.2012         and        decide     the\n              application      of     the        petitioner       for\n              compassionate appointment as per law laid\n              down in case of W.P.(S) No.4480/2006\n              (Smt.    Puna     Bai       Vs.    State),      further\n              petitioner      may     be        considered        for\n              compassionate         appointment         if     found\n              eligible all other aspects.10.2 Any other relief may also be granted\n              to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court\n              may deem fit and proper in the facts and\n              circumstances of the case."2.   Mr. Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner\n\n     would submit that father of petitioner was appointed on the\n\n     post of Watchman in the Office of Sub Engineer, Public\n\n     Health Engineering on 07.04.1989. He continuously worked\n\n     without any break in service till 13.10.2005, he died in\n\n     harness. Service Book of father of petitioner is also prepared\n\n     by Department, copy of which is filed as Annexure P/1 and\n\n     certified by Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering,\n\n     Sub Division Baloda-Bazar, Chhattisgarh. As father of\n\n     petitioner worked on the post continuously for more than 15\n\n     years as a contingency paid employee attained the status of\n\n     permanent employee automatically in view of Rule 2(c) of the\n\n     Chhattisgarh     (Work    Charged          and     Contingency     Paid\n\n     Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (in short 'Rules of 1979').\n\n     After death of father of petitioner, petitioner approached the3respondents for grant of compassionate appointment by way\n\n     of filing of an application on 14.11.2005 (Annexure P/3),\n\n     which   was    not   considered    and   thereafter,   petitioner\n\n     approached to this Court by way of filing WPS No. 1321 of\n\n     2012.3.   Writ petition came up for hearing on 10.04.2012. Considering\n\n     the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner therein and\n\n     counsel for State that case of petitioner is covered with\n\n     decision passed in case ofSmt. Puna Bai v. The State of\n\n     Chhattisgarh and Othersin WPS No.4480 of 2006,\n\n     decided on 19.06.2009, has recorded that in view of\n\n     submission of learned counsel for State, nothing survives for\n\n     adjudication at this stage and order of rejection of application\n\n     for compassionate appointment dated 29.09.2011 was\n\n     quashed. It is contended that once order of rejection of\n\n     application is quashed by the High Court considering\n\n     submission of learned counsel appeared for respective\n\n     parties and holding that petitioner is eligible for consideration\n\n     for grant of compassionate appointment, then further\n\n     rejecting claim thereafter by respondent No.2 on technical\n\n     ground is not sustainable. Referring to provision of Rule 2 of\n\n     Rules of 1979, he would submit that respondent No.2 erred in\n\n     holding that father of petitioner was working only as a daily\n\n     wage employee.It is further contended that respondent No.2\n\n     has not considered the provisions under Rules of 1979 and\n\n     misdirected himself in recording that case ofSmt. Puna Bai4(supra) stands on different footing as her husband was\n\nworking as permanent Gangman, whereas father of petitioner\n\nwas only a daily wager. Father of petitioner though initially\n\nwas appointed as daily wager, but he was paid monthly\n\nwages      from     Contingency      and     Worked       Charged\n\nEstablishment Fund. He was working on post of Chowkidar\n\nand thereafter, he continued to work for more than 15 years\n\nwithout any break. It is contended that continuing service of\n\npetitioner was also not disputed by respondents, but for\n\nstating that father of petitioner was a daily wage employee.\n\nUnder Rule 2(a) of Rules of 1979, 'contingency paid\n\nemployee' is defined. Initially father of petitioner fall within the\n\ndefinition of contingency paid employee as he was employed\n\nfor full time in the office of Sub Engineer, Public Health\n\nEngineering and also paid monthly basis, but by virtue of\n\nRule 2(c) of Rule of 1979, he attained the status of\n\npermanent employee under the Rules of 1979, hence,\n\nground for rejection of application of petitioner for grant of\n\ncompassionate appointment is erroneous, illegal and is not\n\nsustainable in the eyes of law.He places reliance upon the\n\norder passed in WPS No.5754 of 2014 (Shivan Lal Netam\n\nv. State of Chhattisgarh and others) dated 01.10.2018 in\n\nsupport of his contention that claim of compassionate\n\nappointment of Shivan Lal Netam (petitioner therein) was\n\nrejected by the State holding that his father was daily wage\n\nemployee and hence, he was not entitled for compassionate5appointment. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the\n\n     Rules of 1979, allowed writ petition and directed the\n\n     Government officials to consider the claim of petitioner\n\n     therein for compassionate appointment. The order was not\n\n     put to challenge any further and therefore, it might have been\n\n     complied with.He also pointed out that in the aforementioned\n\n     order dated 01.10.2018, the Court has taken note of earlier\n\n     order passed in WPS No.3685 of 2011 (Taman Lal v. State\n\n     of Chhattisgarh & Anr.) decided on 30.07.2018 and as per\n\n     his knowledge the said petitioner Taman Lal was granted\n\n     compassionate appointment and case of petitioner is\n\n     squarely covered by aforementioned order of this Court,\n\n     hence, respondents may be directed to consider the case of\n\n     petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.4.   Per contra, Mr. Ali Asgar, learned Deputy Advocate General\n\n     for the State vehemently opposes submission of learned\n\n     counsel for petitioner and would submit that this is the\n\n     second round of litigation raised by petitioner.In first round,\n\n     though the writ petition was allowed and claim of petitioner\n\n     was considered by competent authority, but upon minute\n\n     analysis of claim of petitioner, respondent No. 2 arrived at a\n\n     conclusion that case of petitioner is not similar to that of case\n\n     ofSmt. Puna Bai(supra), which is the basis of passing of\n\n     order in first round of litigation, as husband of Smt. Puna Bai\n\n     was a permanent Gangman, whereas, father of petitioner\n\n     was only a daily wage employee, hence, respondent No.26was justified in rejecting the claim of petitioner for\n\n     compassionate appointment. He also referred to Annexure\n\n     R/1, which is policy formulated by the State Government for\n\n     grant of compassionate appointment to Government servant.\n\n     Referring to Clause-1 of that policy, he argued that in Clause-1(3) of that policy, it is specifically mentioned that dependent\n\n     members of daily wage employee, contract employee and\n\n     temporary employee are not entitled for compassionate\n\n     appointment. As the father of petitioner has been shown to\n\n     be daily wage employee even in the service book, hence\n\n     petitioner is not entitled for relief. He also pointed out that\n\n     though service book of petitioner (Annexure P/1) is prepared,\n\n     but it does not bear signature of any of the officers of State\n\n     Government, hence, rejection of claim by respondent No.2 is\n\n     justified and it does not call for any interference.5.   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.6.   It is not in dispute that father of petitioner was engaged as\n\n     Watchman (Chowkidar) in the Office of Sub Divisional Office,\n\n     Public Health Engineering on 07.04.1989, who continuously\n\n     worked without any break till he died in harness on\n\n     13.10.2005. The period of work which is appearing from date\n\n     and event available on record would show that father of\n\n     petitioner continuously worked for more than 15 years in the\n\n     Office of Sub Divisional Office, Public Health Engineering\n\n     without any break. It is also not in dispute that work of7Watchman, on which, petitioner was working was of a regular\n\n     nature and not work of temporary nature available for only\n\n     few days in a month or a year or of seasonal nature. In\n\n     service book on the page where the seal of Government\n\n     official is affixed, there appears initial.7.   In the light of aforementioned factual background of case, if\n\n     Rules of 1979 is to be considered, which defines the\n\n     contingency paid employees and permanent employees, it\n\n     would be appropriate to extract the Rule 2 in its entirety for\n\n     ready reference:-"2. Definitions. - In these rules, unless the\n               context otherwise requires,-(a) "Contingency paid employee" means a\n               person employed for full time in an office or\n               establishment and who is paid on monthly\n               basis and whose pay is charged to office\n               contingencies excluding the employees\n               who are employed for certain period only in\n               a year;(b) "Work-charged employee" means a\n               person     employed         upon      the        actual\n               execution,      as    distinct      from        general\n               supervision of a specified work or upon\n               subordinate          supervision           of       the\n               departmental labour, store, running and\n               repairs    of    electrical      equipment         and\n               machinery in connection with such work,\n               excluding the daily paid labour and muster-roll employee employed on the work.8(c)   "Permanent    employee"     means     a\n              contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed\n              fifteen years of service or more on or after\n              the 1st January, 1974."8.   Perusal of Rule 2(a) of Rules of 1979 would show that\n\n     contingency paid employee means person employed for full\n\n     time in an office. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the\n\n     respondents that service of father of petitioner was for full\n\n     time in the office or establishment. The person who has not\n\n     been appointed permanently on any post, then they were\n\n     required to be paid from the funds sanctioned by the State\n\n     Government to the office, which are the funds under the head\n\n     of contingency, to be used looking to the requirement and\n\n     necessity.9.   In the facts of case where father of petitioner was employed\n\n     though on daily wager, but for full time and further\n\n     undisputedly, he was paid on monthly basis, his gratuity was\n\n     also calculated taking his monthly wage, hence, father of\n\n     petitioner will fall within the definition of Rule 2(a) i.e.\n\n     contingency paid employee. As per Rules of 1979, any\n\n     contingency paid employee or work charged employee who\n\n     has completed 15 years of service, attained the status of\n\n     permanent employee as defied under Rule 2(c) of Rules of\n\n     1979. Attaining the status of permanent employee is\n\n     automatically after completion of prescribed period i.e. 159years, hence, submission of learned counsel for respondents\n\n      that father of petitioner do not fall within the definition of\n\n      contingency paid employee or work charged employee,\n\n      hence, petitioner is not entitled for consideration of\n\n      compassionate appointment is not sustainable.10.   The document, which is part of Annexure P/1 i.e. calculation\n\n      of gratuity amount to be paid after said demise of father of\n\n      petitioner would further show that calculation of gratuity is\n\n      made considering monthly wages of father of petitioner in the\n\n      calculation sheet.11.   Policy of State Government for grant of compassionate\n\n      appointment to Government servant in Clause-1(2) very\n\n      clearly entities legal heirs of deceased Government servant\n\n      for   compassionate       appointment       where     deceased\n\n      Government servant was in contingency service or work\n\n      charged establishment and continuously working employee.12.   From undisputed fact of date of engagement of father of\n\n      petitioner and his continuous engagement till 13.10.2005 in\n\n      respondent-establishment, in the opinion of this Court, case\n\n      of petitioner will fall within the Clause-1(2) of policy of State\n\n      Government (Annexure R/1).13.   Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.5754 of 2014\n\n      while considering the claim of petitioner therein for grant of\n\n      compassionate appointment and after considering objection10raised by State with respect to father of that petitioner to be a\n\n      daily wager employee, as also considering Rules of 1979 has\n\n      held that petitioner to be entitled for consideration for grant of\n\n      compassionate appointment, which as stated by counsel for\n\n      petitioner is not further challenged and the order still stands.14.   Another important aspect of the case is that the petitioner\n\n      challenged the order of rejecting his claim on the ground that\n\n      his father was a daily wage employee. The order of rejection\n\n      was put to challenge before the High Court in WPS No. 1321\n\n      of 2012. High Court considering the submissions of the\n\n      counsel for the respective parties, set aside/quashed the\n\n      order of rejection dated 29.09.2011 and writ petition was\n\n      allowed. Court recorded submission of counsel for petitioner\n\n      as also counsel for respondent that case is covered with the\n\n      case ofSmt. Puna Bai v. State of Chhattisgarhin WPS\n\n      No.4480 of 2006 dated 19.06.2006, then the respondent\n\n      authority could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner\n\n      that the case of Smt. Puna Bai stands on different footing. It\n\n      amounts to over reaching of the order passed by the High\n\n      Court. At the best, the respondents could have approached\n\n      the High Court by way of filing review of the order or could\n\n      have challenged the same in appeal, which was not done.15.   Hence, in the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the\n\n      case and discussions, I am of the view that respondent No. 2\n\n      erred in rejecting claim of petitioner for considering him for11grant of compassionate appointment. Consequently, letter\n\n               rejecting claim of petitioner dated 06.06.2012 is quashed.\n\n               Respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner\n\n               for compassionate appointment at the earliest, preferably\n\n               within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of\n\n               this order, subject to fulfilling all other requisite eligibility\n\n               criteria.16.   Writ    petition   stands    allowed    with    aforementioned\n\n               observations/directions.Sd/-(Parth Prateem Sahu)\n                                                               Judge\nYogesh