RATHOD FATHEBEN AMRUTSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction on part of the respondents in not granting lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolutions dtd. 5/7/2011 and 7/4/2016 to the petitioners who are widows of the deceased employee who died in harness.

(2.) Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021 and allied matter wherein it is held that even if an employee since deceased was a daily wager it was his successor who was entitled to the benefit of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. Merely because the deceased was a daily wager was no ground to deny him the benefit.

(3.) Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it is not in doubt that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11554 of 2021and allied matter. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under: