DHARMIBEN HAJABHAI RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a widow of late Rajabhai Rajput who was serving with respondent No.4 as a regular employee and died on 06.12.2013 while in service. The husband of the petitioner has served with the respondent from 1981 to 201 As a result of this, by way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of respondent authority in not paying the amount of leave encashment payable to the husband of the petitioner as well as the amount of difference of gratuity and not deciding the application of the petitioner for granting lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. This claim is based upon by the petitioner on the basis of the decisions delivered by the Court in case of Special Civil Application No.5699 of 1987 as well as the Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2011 in which the Hon'ble Court has observed that employee is once considered as a permanent employee, he is entitled for the benefits which are available for a permanent employee. As a result of this, the benefits of leave encashment, gratuity, pension etc. are to be paid. It has further asserted in the petition that husband of the petitioner had joined the service originally in respondent No.4 as a daily rated labourer with effect from 27.07.1981 and was granted the benefits of government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and after completion of 10 years' service, the petitioner's husband was treated as permanent unskilled labourer and was granted pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with all other benefits which are made available to the permanent employees vide order dated 04.06.1992. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 06.12.2013 after completion of almost 32 years' service with the respondent, the husband of the petitioner had died and the petitioner was granted benefits of retirement including amount of gratuity and family pension. But, instead of calculating the entire service of husband of the petitioner, the respondent has calculated the service with effect from 1992 i.e. from the date on which the husband was made permanent, and therefore, instead of considering 32 years' service, only 22 years' service is considered, and therefore, actual due benefits legitimately payable have not been made available to the petitioner. Further the leave encashment has also not been paid to the petitioner's husband's tenure though requested on 22.08.2014. It was though specifically mentioned that the husband of the petitioner has completed 32 years of service and all due benefits must be made available. However, vide letter dated 110.2014, the respondent authority has replied and rejected the claim of leave enchament benefits. On the premise that there is no policy to extend such benefits to daily rated employee so far as second grievance with respect to lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment by virtue of Resolution dated 05.07.2011, it has been stated that despite the fact that immediately on 21.02.2014, the request was made to grant such benefits till the filing of the petition, no benefits were made available of payment of lump-sum compensation.