JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned advocate learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-widow of the deceased has prayed for a direction that the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment is arbitrary.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that her case for appointment is not considered only on the ground that the deceased was a daily wager.

5. Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5 would invite the Court's attention to the affidavit in reply and submit that the deceased-husband of the petitioner was working as a daily wager and had been granted the benefit of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.06.1996. When the petitioner applied for compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment, it was considered and appointed that the policy does not provide for lump-sum compensation for the benefits of the dependents of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

6. Mr. Chaudhary in support of his submission, rely on the judgment of this Court dated 14.02.2022 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021 and allied matter. The relevant paragraphs of the said order 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 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 and Another vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and Another, 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 re-branded as “daily wager” (ro