JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order under challenge is dated 11.02.2021 by which the petitioner's request for lumpsum compensation under the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband was a daily wager. The order further indicates that the husband of the petitioner had taken a car loan and on his death, the outstanding amount is yet to be recovered by the bank and unless and until No Objection Certificate of the bank is produced, there can be no financial assistance. The question in this petition is only restricted to the rejection order of extension of lumpsum compensation on the ground of the petitioners husband being a daily wager.

2.1. Facts in brief would indicate that the husband of the petitioner joined services on 16.01.1986 under the respondent No. 4 as a daily wager. He was given the benefit of resolution dated 17.10.1988 after completion of five years of service on 16.01.1992 and thereafter the benefit of the resolution on completion of ten years of service on 16.01.1997.

2.2. Office Order dated 30.11.1998 was passed, wherein, the petitioner was granted the regular pay-scale of Rs. 750-940/-.

2.3. The husband of the petitioner worked with the Board for about 34 years and died on 29.12.2020. On a request for lumpsum compensation pursuant to the policy of 05.07.2011, in accordance with the policy of 07.04.2016, the request is rejected.

3. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel, would submit that the petitioner's husband being a daily wager, would not be entitled to the benefits of the financial assistance as is well set out in Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Reliance would be placed on Clause-II of the Resolution of 05.07.2011 which categorically states that the daily wagers, casual workers, apprentices and ad-hoc employees shall not be granted the benefit of this Scheme.

3.1. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate, relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 7578 with Civil Appeal No. 7579 of 2021. He would press into service the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where it has been categorically observed that the Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board can only be directed to pay the benefits of the policy which it has adopted of the State and not what is adopted by the Water Sewerage Board in terms of Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

3.2. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate, further submits that since there is no policy for lumpsum compensation which has been adopted by the Board, as is so framed by the State Government, the petitioner cannot be entitled to the benefits of lumpsum compensation.

4. Ms. Ashlesha Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1795 of 2013 dated 07.10.2016, wherein, the cases of daily wagers who had been extended the benefits of 17.10.1988 was considered. The Court, relying on the decision in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas & Anr., reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1290 allowed the petition. She would also rely on a decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 30 of 2017 dated 10.02.2020 and the order so passed according to Ms. Patel, learned advocate, had been complied with.

5. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the State would rely on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12270 of 2013 dated 30.08.2017 and submit that the Court had held that by virtue of being extended the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the beneficiary thereof cannot be treated to be in regular service merely because the benefits of