IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7854 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV ==========================================================

==========================================================

KHERAJ PACHAN SONDHRA DECD. THROUGH LHS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS. NIYATI CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE FOR MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 07/09/2022

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 The prayer in the petition is to quash and set aside the orders dated 08.10.2021 and 12.10.2021, by which the case of the petitioner has been rejected for compensation in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds stating that the petitioner’s father was a daily wager. He was granted the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all other consequential benefits, except leave encashment.

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 Merambh