Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7926
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
BIREN VAISHNAV, J
RAMPRASAD RAMPRAHAR KORI SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHS RAMRATI WD/O RAMPRASAD KORI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16918 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR DIPAK R DAVE
For the Respondents: MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP
Heirs of regularized daily wagers are entitled to benefits of government compensation schemes, regardless of previous employment status.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 - Compassionate Compensation - Petitioner’s entitlement to benefits from the government resolution despite being a daily wager was upheld based on the precedent set in past cases and the nature of employment prior to death. (Paras 5-7)
(B) Employment Law - Equal treatment in benefit distribution - Court emphasized that once an employee achieves permanent status, their heirs cannot be denied benefits. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, widow of the deceased daily wager, sought compensation as per the government resolutions after her husband’s death while in service.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner’s claims for compensation were justified under the provided resolutions and direction to consider compensation based on pro-rata service was issued.
Issues: Primary issue revolved around the applicability of the government resolutions to the case of the deceased daily wager employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that daily wagers, post regularization, hold entitlement to benefits akin to permanent employees.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court approved immediate hearing on the petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the petitioner’s case regarding lack of compensation for a deceased daily wager. (Para 3) |
JUDGEMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the widow of the deceased Ramprasad Ramprahar Kori who was working as a daily wager. The deceased had received the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and pension payment order was also issued on the basis of he having earned the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. 4. Mr.Dipak Dave would submit that the case of the widow has not been considered for compensation though an application was made on 14.12.2021. 5. He would rely on the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7957 of 2022. The said order reads as under:
- “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.
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.” Bench that the distinction as sought to be made out was not tenable in law.
