Point of Law:
Petitioner cannot be treated as a daily wager as she is engaged for specific term for specific work. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner has been working since till she retired and the benefits arising out of the Government Resolution cannot be conferred to the piece rated worker.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief’s;

(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned letter dated 2.11.2015 issued by the respondent No. 5 denying the petitioner the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 9.7.2013 as arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, bad in law and , thus, violative of Articles 14,16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to extend the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 9.7.2013 (reported in 2013(8)scale 579) to the petitioner from the date she became eligible for such benefits with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is reported by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta that the petitioner has already retired from the service on 09.05.2017, which is communicated vide communication dated 06.05.2017. The said communication dated 06.05.2017 is ordered to be taken on record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that though she was working as a daily wager since 1989, she has not conferred the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD Employees' Union & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 and subsequent judgment of the Supreme in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD and Forest Union and Ors, reported in 2019 (3) scale 462.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is denied the benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that her services, from 29.10.2010 is treated, as piece rated basis and hence, she would not be entitled to such benefits as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in Special Civil Application No. 4589 of 2005 in the case of Executive Engineer (O. & M.) & Anr v. Hareshbhai Bhurabhai Vala, reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1064. It is submitted that the mode and manner of the payment to workmen, cannot alter his/her status and therefore the petitioner is required to be considered as a daily wager and hence she would be entitled to the benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

5. Per contra learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, while supporting the affidavit filed by the respondent authority, has submitted that looking to the status of the petitioner, she is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as she was engaged on piece rated basis and hence, she cannot be termed as a daily wager. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be treated as a daily wager as she is engaged for specific term for specific work. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner has been working since 18.09.2000 till she retired and the benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be conferred to the piece rated worker.

6. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The State authority do not dispute about the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the daily wagers, who are working under the respondent-State authority. The petitioner is denied the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the reasons that she has been engaged as a piece rated worker since 17.09.2000. The information provided by the respondent-State authorities, which is signed by the Range Forest Officer, Mudi, Additional Conservator of Fores