JUDGMENT :

1. Both these petitions are filed by family members of the deceased-employee who at the relevant time was working as a daily wager and was subsequently granted the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. Prayers in both these petitions is to assail the action of the respondents in not granting the benefits of lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolutions dated 07.04.2016 and 05.07.2011. For the purposes of convenience, facts of Special Civil Application No. 12746 of 2021 are referred to.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner joined the service on 20.06.1988 as a daily wager. On completion of five years of service on 01.06.1993, the petitioner's husband was extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He was also subsequently granted the benefits of the resolution on completion of ten and fifteen years respectively. All benefits available to permanent employees were granted to the husband of the petitioner. After having served for 28 years, the husband of the petitioner died on 04.10.2016. An application therefore was made on 13.07.2021 for grant of lumpsum compensation in accordance with the resolution dated 07.04.2016 and 05.07.2011. The same was rejected by a communication dated 20.07.2021 on the ground that the petitioner shall not be entitled to benefit of lumpsum compensation in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner was not a permanent employee and as per the resolution of 05.07.211 since he was a daily wager the benefits of resolution of 05.07.2011 read with 07.04.2016 cannot be granted.

3. Ms.Ashlesha Patel, learned advocate, would submit that the issue is no longer in the realm of a debate, in lieu of the judgment of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1795 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1234 of 2017, wherein, this court considering the decision in the case of State of Gujarat and Another v. Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas & Anr reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1290, observed that it sounds absurd and baseless that an employee employed on daily wages can be rebranded as a 'permanent daily wager'. The court accordingly directed that the family of the deceased, daily wager, is entitled to the benefits of the resolution dated 05.07.2011.

3.1 Ms. Ashlesha Patel, learned advocate, also relied on the decision of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1951 of 2017 dated 29.06.2018, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court based on the decision in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra), extended the benefits of the resolution of 05.07.2011 to the petitioner.

3.2 Ms. Ashlesha Patel, learned advocate, would then rely on the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14126 of 2017, wherein, the Division Bench decision was followed and the learned Single Judge considering the Division Bench decision and the decision in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra), extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

4. Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State, would submit that a daily wager merely by having the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be granted the benefits of the resolution and cannot be treated as permanent, and therefore, merely because the resolution gives them certain benefits, compassionate appointment or compensation in lieu thereof cannot be granted. For this Mr.Thakkar, learned AGP, would rely on the following decisions:

(i) Decision in the case of Suresh Maganbhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat & Anr., passed in Special Civil Application No. 14834 of 2010.

(ii) Decision in the case of Javeed A Surangi v. State of Gujarat & Anr., passed in Special Civil Application No. 12270 of 2013.

(iii) Decision of the Division Bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1532 of 2007, in the case of Ashok Kamabhai Chaudhary v. Chief Scientist & Anr.

4.1 Relying