Jagrutiba Balbhadrasinh Chudasama ... vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 1558 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Jagrutiba Balbhadrasinh Chudasama ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2024

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/SCA/2627/2024                              ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024

                                                                                   undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2627 of 2024

========================================================
     JAGRUTIBA BALBHADRASINH CHUDASAMA WD/O BALBHADRASINH
       VIKRAMSINHJAGRUTIBA BALBHADRASINH CHUDASAMA WD/O
                 BALBHADRASINH VIKRAMSINH & ORS.
                               Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================
Appearance:
MR JA ADESHRA(107) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                               Date : 20/02/2024

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. J.A. Adeshra on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent- State.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent - State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioners who are all widows of employees who had been appointed on daily rated basis with the respondents and had been granted benefit of permanency, and who had died in harness, challenge the decision of the respondent authorities of not granting lumpsum compensation to the petitioners in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the policy of the State Government vide Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2627/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024

undefined

Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

4. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Adeshara it would appear that the late husbands of the petitioners herein had been working with the respondents as daily rated employees from various dates and while in some cases the benefit of permanency had been accorded prior to the demise of the late employees, in some of the cases, the employees were granted such benefits after their demise.

5. It would appear that the employees i.e the late husbands of the petitioners, had all died in harness and whereas the petitioners had sought for grant of lumpsum compensation as per the policy of the State Government vide Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 and on 05.12.2023 individual order in case of each of the petitioner having been passed by the respondents rejecting the request more particularly on the ground that since the late husbands of the petitioners were working as daily rated employees, they would not be entitled to the benefit of lumpsum compensation.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Adesara it would appear that the issue is no more res integra in as much as consistently a view has been taken by this Court that upon an employee who had originally been appointed on daily rated basis, upon completion of certain number of years as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would be entitled to grant of permanency and whereas upon grant of permanency, the employee would stand at par with other permanent employees appointed through direct selection. It would also appear that upon the benefit of permanency granted to the employee, the employee would be entitled to all

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2627/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024

undefined

the benefits as available to an employee appointed on regular basis.

7. Reference is made to observations of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1234 of 2017 more particularly paragraphs no. 8 and 9 thereof for benefit:

"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. There is also specific observation that in the event of a proposal for resignation, notice of resignation also should be issued before tendering the resignation. 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. 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. While it is also true that initially late father of the respondent was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1981, after considering his length of services, his services were regularized with effect from 1.1.1986, extending all the benefits payable to regular employees vide order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2627/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024

undefined

appellant No.2 herein. If the conditions of regularisation order given while appointing the late father of the respondent herein are considered, with reference to various clauses under the scheme of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, we are of the view that the respondent herein is entitled for all the benefits. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. V. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., reported in 2011(2) GLR 1290 has held in paragraph No.5 as under :

"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 re-branded 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 the clarification made hereunder."

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Madhabhai Vaghela Vs. Director, Pension and Provident Fund & Anr. Reported in 2004(1) G.L.H. page 129 where the learned Single Judge has held that a daily wager cannot be said to be holding the post in the State Government and in view of the statutory rules, service

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2627/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024

undefined

rendered as daily wage employee cannot be treated as pensionable service nor can such service be counted for computation of pension. Having regard to the facts, we are of the view that said judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader would not have any assistance in support of his case."

8. It would appear that since late husbands of the petitioners being granted the benefit of permanency not being in dispute therefore in view of the law laid down by this Court, it appears that the issue is no more res integra, hence the petition requires consideration.

9. Hence, Impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 in case of each of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. The respondents authorities are directed to pay the lumpsum compensation as entitled to by the present petitioners as per Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Non adherence to the above order would entitle the petitioner for interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of this petition.

11. With the above observations and directions the present petition stands disposed of.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU