1 2026:CGHC:26138 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3211 of 2021 Tarun Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Raju Prasad Yadav, Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Un-Employed R/o. Ranisagar Para Pithoura, Police Station And Tahsil - Pithoura, Civil and Revenue District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Public Works Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In-Chief, Near Raj Bhawan, Public Works Department, Division No. 2 Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Division Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Sub - Division Pithoura, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Vivek Siddhrarth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 17.06.2020, whereby the representation/application made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Permanent Gangman in the Public Works Department. He died on 17.12.2006; thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 30.05.2007, which was rejected on 24.12.2009, against which, WPS No.829/2012 was preferred, wherein while disposing of the said petition, the State authorities were directed to consider the matter of the petitioner for compassionate appoint. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner made a detailed representation before the respondent authorities, however, the same was also rejected; thus, the present petition has been filed. 3. Shri Rajendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation (WPS NO.829 of 2012 on 04.02.2020), therefore, rejection of the representation/application of the petitioner on the ground that his father was a Permanent Gangman but he was not a regular employee of the Department, is erroneous; thus, he would pray to allow the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned order dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) clearly reveals that father of the present petitioner was working with the respondent Department since 01.10.1983. However, during the entire tenure of his service, he was never regularized in the Work-Charged Establishment and continued to serve only as a Casual Labourer in the Public Works Department and he died in harness on 17.12.2006. He would refer Clause 3 of the circular dated 27.04.2006, issued by the Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, with regard to the policy governing compassionate appointment, which provides that only permanent employees of the contingency establishment are entitled to the benefit of compassionate 3 appointment. He would argue that the authority concerned has duly considered the policy and thereafter rejected the representation of the petitioner; thus, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard. 6. Clause 2 of the policy relating to compassionate appointment is reproduced as under:- "2. जिस गैंगैंमैन को कोर्यभारित स्थापन मै निनर्यनिमैत नहीं निकोर्य गैंर्य हीं, उन्हीं अनकोम्प निनर्यनि को! पत्रत नहीं# हीं। चूं&'निको वे श्रनिमैको हीं।" 7. In WPS No. 829/2012, decided on 04.02.2020 (Tarun Kumar Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh and ors.), the Coordinate Bench, while dealing with the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, made the following observations in paragraphs 17 and 18:- “17. Given the aforesaid factual positions and the legal positions as has been laid down by this Court in the case of "Taman Lal" (supra) and also taking note of the avertments of the Engineer in Chief, so far as the status of the father of the petitioner is concerned in his affidavit dt. 01.10.2018 this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that undisputedly the father of the petitioner was working in the contingency establishment and was working as a permanent gang man. The scheme for compassionate appointment is also made applicable for the contingency establishment, who are working on permanent basis. 18. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, only because the father of the petitioner was not regularized in the services of the respondents, cannot be a ground dis-entitling the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and the impugned order to that-extent is not sustainable, and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside/quashed.” 8. A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs would make it clear that the the father of the petitioner was working in the contingency 4 establishment and was working as a permanent gang man. The scheme for compassionate appointment is also made applicable for the contingency establishment, who are working on permanent basis. 9. However, the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Departmentvide order dated 17.06.2020, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that his father was not a regular employee. 10. Having considered the findings recorded in WPS No. 829/2012, dt. 04.02.2020, it is apparent that the same have not been taken into consideration by the Superintendent Engineer, PDW. The said findings have also not been challenged by the State authorities before any higher forum and thus, it attained finality. 11. Accordingly, the order passed by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be, and is hereby, quashed. 12. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim