Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The contention in the affidavit-in-reply that the father of the petitioner was a "permanent daily-wager"

and, therefore, could not be given the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 is, therefore, contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Division Bench in the above judgment and also to their own order dated 28.03.2008 by which the petitioner's father was made permanent.

11. A submission has been advanced by Mr.Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the services of the petitioner's father were regularised under the Industrial Disputes Act and not under the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, therefore, he cannot be said to be a permanent employee. Another submission advanced is that as the petitioner's father was not appointed under the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, he cannot get benefit of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Both these submissions deserve outright rejection. It is a matter of record that the petitioner's father was initially appointed as a daily-wager with effect from 01.01.1981 and his services came to be made permanent with effect from 01.01.1986, by the order dated 28.03.2008. It is the permanent nature of the appointment of the petitioner's father at the time of C/SCA/2884/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2022 his death that is to be considered for the benefit under the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 and not whether he was initially appointed as a daily- wager. The submission that the petitioner's father was appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, is factually and legally incorrect. Having been engaged as a daily-wager in the year 1981 and thereafter, being accorded permanent status with effect from 01.01.1986, there is no question of appointment under the Gujarat Civil Services Rules. The contention raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader is totally irrelevant and out of context."

5.5 The position of law emerges from the aforesaid decision is that even where the employee is granted benefit of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and therein he is made permanent and the permanency status is accorded to him by extending various benefits, the employee will become full-fledged permanent employee for the purpose of receiving all the benefits which a permanently employed employee may receive. Once the permanent status is accorded to the daily- wager employee in the scheme of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, he cannot be discriminated against by denying certain benefits which are otherwise available to the permanent employee on the ground of permanency acquired by the employee was not by way of regular appointment, but under the scheme of the said Resolution. The permanency benefits which stand vested in the employee in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 shall be deemed to pervade for all the benefits available to the permanent or regular employee. It cannot be that for certain benefits father of the petitioner is to be treated as temporary or daily- wager and for certain benefits, he would be treated as regular employee."

7 Therefore, on facts, firstly what the request of the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to grant him compassionate appointment despite there being a clear clause providing for compassionate grant of Rs.1 lakh. In the facts of the present case, the Policy of 05.07.2011 clearly denies even the lump-sum compensation which is under challenge before this Court. Admittedly, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the employee's successor was granted that compensation, however, he claimed appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court, drew distinction between the workcharge employee and C/SCA/2884/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2022 permanent employee and considering the case on hand opined as under:

"17 In our view, the aforesaid plea misses the point of distinction between a workcharge employee, a permanent employee and a regular employee. The late father of the respondent was undoubtedly a work- charged employee and it is nobody's case that he has not been paid out of work-charged / contingency fund. He attained the status of a permanent employee on account of having completed 15 years of service, which entitled him to certain benefits including pension and krammonati. This will, however, not ipso facto give him the status of a regular employee.