Interpretation of Government Resolutions and previous court decisions influenced the finding of the court, establishing the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits of the Government Resolutions.

ORDER :

1. Both these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction on part of the respondents in not granting lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 to the petitioners who are widows of the deceased employee who died in harness.

2. Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021 and allied matter wherein it is held that even if an employee since deceased was a daily wager it was his successor who was entitled to the benefit of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. Merely because the deceased was a daily wager was no ground to deny him the benefit.

2.1 As far as entitlement of the petitioner for leave encashment is concerned, since the issue is pending before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal No. 1505 of 2022 in the case of The State of Gujarat and Others vs. Vaktaji Rupaji Parmar and Others, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner would concede that the issue regarding leave encashment can be dealt with at a later point of time depending on the outcome of the SLP, if occasion arises.

3. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it is not in doubt that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021and allied matter. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision read 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 coverted 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 vs. 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 Paragraph7 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 dailywager”. There is no concept of a “permanent dailywager” in service jurisprudence. What the term “permanent dailywager” 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 dailywager”. The term “permanent dailywager”, 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 dailywage 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 rebranded