SURESH MAGANBHAI CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) THE short facts which can be carved out from the record of the petition are that the father of the petitioner late Maganbhai Bhagvanbhai Chavda was working as a daily wager with respondent No.2. It transpires from the record that late Maganbhai was dismissed and was thereafter reinstated as per the award passed by the Labour Court. It further transpires that the father of the petitioner expired on 28.6.2009 while in service. THE petitioner being elder son of Maganbhai made an application for being considered for compassionate appointment vide his application dated 15.7.2009. THE said application came to be scrutinized by the authorities and vide order impugned in the present petition dated 30.7.2009, the petitioner was informed that since Maganbhai was daily wager, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.7.2009, the present petition is filed.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned AGP for the respondents has taken this Court through the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.3. Learned AGP stated that on reinstatement as per the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 21.2.1997, the father of the petitioner?Maganbhai was reinstated in his original status of daily wager. The learned AGP submitted that as per the policy which prevailed on the date on which the petitioner's application was considered, the heirs of daily wager are not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment nor even lumpsum compensation as per the prevailing scheme. It is submitted that even as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3121, daily wagers are not covered within the definition of the ?Government servant?. It is, therefore, submitted that as per the policy of the compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the compassionate appointment as father of the petitioner was a daily wager. The learned AGP has also relied upon the judgment of this Court (Coram: S.K. Keshote, J. as he then was) passed in Special Civil Application No.11723 of 1994 dated 22.12.1995, wherein this Court has also come to the conclusion that the dependents of the employees who are working on daily wagers are not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment.