Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Deputy ... vs Nanduben Ambalal Vaghela W/O Late ... on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1477/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1477 of 2025
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
NANDUBEN AMBALAL VAGHELA W/O LATE AMBALAL MANJIBHAI
VAGHELA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
CHAUHAN DHWANIKA RAJESHBHAI(14066) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 04/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.2021, whereby the learned Labour Court, Rajkot has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in lieu of compassionate appointment to the respondent-legal heir of the deceased employee.
2. Learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased husband of the respondent no.1 was working as a Rojamdar/daily wager and therefore, was not covered under any government resolutions. She submits that in view thereof, the learned Labour Court ought not to have entertained the recovery application preferred by the respondent. She submits that the respondent no.1 has failed to place any document on record to show that her husband was appointed as a regular employee after following due procedure of law as a Class-III or Class-IV employee. She submits that in absence of any documentary evidence showing her eligibility to receive lump sum compensation, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. She further submits Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:14:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1477/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined that the respondent has preferred a recovery application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act" for short) without there being any adjudication of the rights of the respondent no.1 decided under Section 10(1) of the ID Act. She submits that without proper adjudication of the right and entitlement of the respondent no.1, no recovery application could have been entertained by the learned Labour Court. In support of her contentions, she relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 629, wherein it has been held that the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act applies only to claims based on pre-existing rights or entitlements that are already adjudicated or recognized. She submits that in the present case there is no adjudication and therefore also, the recovery application was not maintainable. She has further submitted that the daily wagers are not treated as any Class-IV employees as per the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 nor they are government servants as defined under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. She, therefore, submits that the respondent no.1 cannot claim the benefit of lump sum compensation under the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016, which is specifically framed for the regular government servants, who have been appointed by following due recruitment procedure. She submits that the impugned award be quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:14:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1477/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined
3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Chauhan appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in the present case it is not in dispute that the deceased workman was a permanent cleaner working with the petitioner. He submits that looking at his length of service, the deceased employee was also granted the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for regularization of his services. He further submits that upon the death of the employee, the respondent was paid gratuity, group insurance, pension etc. He submits that the respondent no.1 was covered under the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016. He submits that since the said right to compensation is recognized under the government resolution, the recovery application has been rightly entertained by the learned Labour Court and the benefit has also been correctly granted to the respondent. He submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016 since the husband of the respondent had expired while in service. He, therefore, submits that the present petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the documents on record and considered the submissions.
5. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1073 of 2023 vide order dated 10.08.2023 has held as under:-
7. The issue whether the compassionate appointment/lumpsum compensation scheme could be extended in the cases of daily rated workmen securing benefits under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:14:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1477/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined came up for consideration before the Court in Fatmabai Abdul Sumra vs. State of Gujarat, which were Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021 and another decided on 14.02.2022 and again in Gauriben Hargovinbhai Vaghela vs. Secretary, Narmada and Water Resources Department in Special Civil Application No. 2884 of 2022, decided on 20.04.2022.
7.1 In those cases, learned Single Judge held otherwise. It was noticed that the decision in Javeed A Surangi (supra), in Suresh Maganbhai Chavda (supra) and Dharmeshgiri Balvantgiri Goswami (supra) taking the view that benefit of compassionate scheme would not be available to the daily rated workmen was without noticing the binding observations of the Division Bench in State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas [2011 (2) GLR 1290]. The view was taken by the Division Bench is inter alia that there was no concept such as permanent daily wager and it was strange in service jurisprudence to bring out the nomenclature or concept of permanent daily wager.
7.2 In Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the Division Bench stated thus, "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 as "daily wager" (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently rebranded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best "permanent daily wage employees", is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment except for Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:14:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1477/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined the clarification made hereunder."
7.3 The Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat vs. Nathabhai Ghemarbhai Parmar, which was Letters Patent Appeal No. 1234 of 2017, decided on 04.08.2017 observed thus in paragraph 8, in which also, the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) was relied on, "8. In this case, it is not in dispute that late father of the respondent herein was initially appointed as a daily wager and thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 28.03.2008. A copy of such order is also placed on record. As per the terms of the said order, it is made clear that late father of the respondent herein would be entitled to the benefits of regular employees including retiral benefits, seniority, etc.......Further, we have also perused the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. While it is true that para 3 clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 states that such scheme of paying compensation amount is applicable to the employees, who are regularly recruited persons, but there is a specific clause which excludes applicability of the scheme to the category of persons namely, daily wager, casual worker, apprentice, adhoc, contract or reemployment."
7.3.1 It was further observed and held in same paragraph, "If both the clauses are conjointly read, it is clear that this scheme is to be extended to all the persons, who are on regular services on the date of death of the deceased employee. As the scheme itself is a beneficial scheme for the employees, who die in harness, the respondent herein cannot be denied the same on the ground that late father of the respondent was initially recruited as a daily wager."
7.4 Therefore, there stands a binding proposition of law that a daily rated workman who is extended the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to be considered for permanency benefit on the basis of length of service would derive all attendant benefits and benefits including of the scheme of compassionate appointment. The original status of the daily rated workman would not be an impediment or debilitating factor for the kith and kin of the deceased to claim the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment/compassionate lump sum payment, provided their case falls within the corners of the scheme."Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:14:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1477/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined
6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent no.1 was employed as a Rojamdar/daily wager cleaner with the petitioner on 01.03.1986 and thereafter, on 01.03.1996 the service came to be regularized by granting the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Unfortunately, while in service, the husband of the petitioner expired on 27.07.2017. The respondent no.1 was granted all the benefits including pension, gratuity, group insurance etc. payable on the death of her husband. The respondent no.1 thereafter made an application on 06.03.2018 to the petitioner seeking benefit of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016. The said application came to be rejected by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Recovery Application No.92 of 2019 in the Labour Court, Rajkot. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has allowed the application and granted lump sum compensation to the respondent in lieu of compassionate appointment. No error can be attributed to the impugned order and the same is just and proper. The impugned order is in conformity with the order of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1073 of 2023 dated 10.08.2023. The present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ABHISHEK/85 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:14:39 IST 2026