ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“11(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to immediately extend the benefit of G.R. dated 5-7-

2011, 7-4-2016 and 27-7-2020;

(B) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and / or writ in the nature of mandamus and /or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of 300 days Leave Encashment which is already extended to other similarly situated employees as per order of this Hon’ble Court.”

3 Ms.Niyati Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned advocate for the respondent, would rely on an affidavit-in-reply filed and submit that in light of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, which is not applicable to the case of daily wagers, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment.

4 Mr.M.T.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on a decision passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 15577 of 2021 dated 05.04.2022, relevant paras of which read as under:

“ 2 This petition has been filed by the deponents of the deceased employee. We have examined the service book of the concerned employee. A perusal of the service book reveals that the employee was appointed as a Rojamdar Driver on 20.06.1987. The Initial notings made in the service book , indicates that, after completion of 5 years of service, the deceased employee was granted the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and he was also appointed as Work Charge employee having pay of Rs.950/per month. The said benefit was granted to the deceased employee from 01.01.1995. On 13.01.1999, he was placed under Work Charge establishment. After considering his continuity of service from 20.06.1987 to 01.04.2006, the deceased employee was placed in a regular pay scale of Rs.3050 - 4590/- by an order dated 13.12.2007, and accordingly increments were also fixed and paid. Thereafter, the deceased employee was also granted regular revisions of pay. The noting dated 05.09.2012 indicates that from 01.01.2006, his post has been mentioned as a “Driver” and his pay was fixed at Rs.6510/- with effect from 01.07.2006, his grade pay was increased at Rs.1900/- and his revised pay band as on 01.07.2006 was of Rs.5200 – 20,200/-.

He expired while in service on 02.02.2013.”

5.4 It was thereafter held by the Division Bench that the distinction as sought to be made out was not tenable in law. While learned advocate for the respondent Board tried to harp that even if the benefit of Resolution dated 05th July, 2011 could be extended, the Division Bench held it to be extendable since employee was on the workcharge. This contention find emphatic answer from the following observations of the Division Bench in Manjuben wd/o. Deceased Merambhai Kalabhai Sondarava (supra), “12. In the opinion of this Court, no such distinguishing feature has been incorporated in the Resolution dated 05.07.2011. The same only refers to the employees of Class III and IV working under the State Government. Clause 2 specifically confers benefit of compensation to the heirs of deceased workman of Class III and IV, who were working on the Work Charge establishment. Though, such benefit has been specifically denied to heirs of the Daily Wagers, casual workers, apprentice, ad hoc and employees working on contractual basis, the same cannot be applied to the daily wagers or employees, who have been subsequently regularized and are made permanent and have also been conferred the benefits of regular revision of pay under the statutory pay rules. Thus, such emp