SOLANKI KAPILABEN RAMSANG Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order under challenge is dtd. 11/2/2021 by which the petitioner's request for lumpsum compensation under the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband was a daily wager. The order further indicates that the husband of the petitioner had taken a car loan and on his death, the outstanding amount is yet to be recovered by the bank and unless and until No Objection Certificate of the bank is produced, there can be no financial assistance. The question in this petition is only restricted to the rejection order of extension of lumpsum compensation on the ground of the petitioners husband being a daily wager.

(3.) Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel, would submit that the petitioner's husband being a daily wager, would not be entitled to the benefits of the financial assistance as is well set out in Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. Reliance would be placed on Clause-II of the Resolution of 5/7/2011 which categorically states that the daily wagers, casual workers, apprentices and ad-hoc employees shall not be granted the benefit of this Scheme.