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 o