JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the State-respondent.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other writ or a direction that the respondent authorities consider the case of the petitioner for financial assistance on compassionate basis in accordance with the Resolution of the State dated 05.07.2011 and 04.12.2020, by which, the request has been rejected.

3. Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the husband of the petitioner was regular unskilled worker from 16.08.1980 to 23.02.2018. He had put in service for 37 years, 6 months and 11 days. The petitioner's husband died while on duty on 23.02.2018. He had, therefore, rendered 27 years of regular service from 24.01.1991 to 23.02.2018. The claim of the petitioner is that she is entitled to financial assistance in accordance with the Government Resolutions.

3.1. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13083 of 2020, wherein, the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with the direction of the Court. By the order dated 04.12.2020, the Executive Engineer rejected the request, hence the petition.

4. The issue of extending financial benefits pursuant to the Resolution dated 05.07.2011 read with resolution dated 07.04.2016 has been decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021 and the Court considering the decisions has held as under :

"6 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it will be apt to consider the first decision in line rendered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Abhilasha Kumari, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 1795 of 2013. Therein too, the claim of the petitioner for financial benefits in lieu of compensation were denied. After extensively hearing the parties, the Court opined that it was strange for the respondents to contend that the services of the petitioner were regularized and were converted into "permanent daily wager". There is no concept of permanent daily wager. Extensively relying on the decision in the case of State of Gujarat and ors. v. Mahendarakumar Bhagwandas, which was reproduced in para 9 of the decision, the Court in no uncertain terms held that there was no concept of permanent daily wager. The relevant paras 8 to 11 of the decision reads as under:

"8. A strange ground is taken in Paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 2, wherein it is stated that the "service of the petitioner was regularised and his service was converted as permanent daily wager". There is no concept of a "permanent daily wager" in service jurisprudence. What the term "permanent daily wager" means can only be explained by the second respondent. Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has remained unsuccessful in satisfying this query of the Court. In the order dated 28.03.2008, whereby the services of the petitioner's father were made permanent, respondent No. 2 has used the word "permanent" and not "permanent daily wager". The term "permanent daily wager", therefore, appears to have been coined by respondent No. 2, presumably with a view to taking the case of the petitioner out of the scope and ambit of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

9. The nomenclature of "permanent daily wage employee" came up for discussion before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. V. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., reported in 2011(2) GLR 1290. This is what the Division Bench held:

"5....Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently r