Gujarat High Court
Senior Manager (P And A) vs Kheraj Pachan Sondhra Decd. Through Lhs on 18 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/460/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 460 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7854 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 3 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 460 of 2023
==========================================================
SENIOR MANAGER (P AND A)
Versus
KHERAJ PACHAN SONDHRA DECD. THROUGH LHS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KH BAXI(150) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MS. SHRUTI DHRIVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. K. H. Baxi for the appellants and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for respondent
No.2-State and learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Mishra for rest of the
respondents.
2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is addressed to judgment and order dated 7.9.2022 of
learned single Judge, whereby the Special Civil Application filed by the
respondents-original petitioners came to be partially allowed. The
petitioners were held entitled to receive the benefits flowing from
government Resolutions dated 5.7.2011 and 7.4.2016 and thereby to
receive the benefits of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/460/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
appointment. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the
petitioners for grant of lumpsum compensation on the basis of services
rendered by the deceased employee.
3. What was prayed in the petition was to set aside the orders dated
8.10.2011 and 12.10.2021 denying the benefits of the aforementioned
government Resolutions to the petitioners and to further direct the
respondents to extend the benefits under the said Resolutions to the legal
heirs of the deceased employee-the original petitioners.
3.1 The deceased husband of petitioner No.1 joined as daily-waged
employee under the respondents on 1.12.1992. After completion of 10
years of service, the deceased husband was put in regular time scale of
pay on 24.1.2005 with effect from 31.12.2001 by extending him the
benefits flowing from the government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Thereafter, the respondents extended the pay revisions as per 5 th, 6th and
7th Pay Commissions. The husband died on 6.11.2018 while in service.
4. The legal heirs made representation dated 27.9.2021 seeking
compassionate amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said
representation came to be rejected by the respondents as per orders dated
8.10.2021 and 12.10.2021, which gave rise to filling of Special Civil
Application, which came to be allowed in favour of the heirs of the
deceased employee.
5. 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, is no
more res integra.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/460/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
5.1 The Division Bench of this court in State of Gujarat
vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas [2011 (2) GLR 1290] 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 the clarification made hereunder.
5.2 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/460/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
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."
5.3 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."
5.4 Therefore, there stands a binding proposition of law that a daily
rated workman who is entitled to be 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 lumpsum
payment, provided their case falls within the corners of the scheme.
6. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has
rightly taken a view that the petitioners, who were the heirs of the
deceased daily rated workman would be entitled to be considered for the
benefit under the Resolution dated 05.07.2011 for compassionate
lumpsum payment even if they were the successor of the deceased daily
wager. This court is entirely in agreement with the reasons supplied and
the view taken by learned single Judge.
6.1 It is, therefore, directed that the case of the petitioners shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/460/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
examined for the purpose of extending the benefit of Resolution dated
05.07.2011 and the petitioners shall be considered for lumpsum
compensation under the said scheme provided the petitioners fulfill the
conditions of the scheme to fall within the bounds of the scheme and that
his claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the deceased employee
was a daily wager.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with the above
observations.
In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, no orders are
required to be passed in the Civil Application. It stands disposed of
accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
C.M. JOSHI
