JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been taken out under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original petitioners – appellants herein against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3532 of 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by appellants herein. 2. Brief facts of the case is that petitioner No.1 is a widow and petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased Rahubha Vatubha Jadeja, who was working on the post of “Dadiya” in respondent – Corporation at the time of his death i.e. 10.07.2011. It is further the case of the petitioners that as the deceased has died during his service, they have submitted an application on 29.07.2011 for appointment on compassionate ground and vide application dated 23.09.2013 for granting exgratia payment under the scheme in lieu of the appointment of compassionate ground, which came to be rejected by the respondent – Corporation and due to that the petitioners have preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application contending various grounds and contended that the deceased was working since 15.09.1986 in Water Works Department of the respondent – Corporation and he was, initially, appointed in fixed pay and he was, appointed, at the relevant time, through regular procedure of recruitment. It is contended that during his service, he was also suspended from 21.01.1994 to 02.02.2000 and departmental inquiry was also initiated against him and, thereafter, he was taken back in service and arrears of salary amount was also paid to him. It is contended that the deceased was working on the post of “Permanent Dadiya” on fixed salary, but certainly, he was not working on daily basis. It is further contended that the deceased was granted regular pay scale and considering his long service from 1986, the Corporation ought to have granted the relief of either compassionate appointment or compensation in lieu of thereof. It is contended that the respondent – Corporation has rejected the application on the ground that at the time of the death of the deceased, he has not completed five years of service on regular basis. It is contended that the respondent – Corporation has rejected the application on the ground that at the time of the death of the deceased, he has not completed five years of service on regular basis. 2.1 It is the contention of the petitioners that learned Single Judge has not considered the factual aspects of the case in proper perspective and dismissed the petition simply on the ground that the deceased was not on regular basis and he was not fulfilling criteria of the scheme under Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the impugned judgment and order, the petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Anand Gogia, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials placed on record and the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 4. Mr. Anand Gogia, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the petitioners ought to have been granted either compassionate appointment or compensation in view of the new resolution of the Government. According to him, the Corporation ought to have considered the fact that since 1986, the deceased was working in the Corporation and though, he was paid fixed salary for certain period, he was on the post of “Dadiya”. While referring to the order dated 21.09.2006, which is at page No.22 of the compilation, regarding appointment of the deceased on regular pay scale, he has submitted that though the deceased was granted pay scale from 2006, it clearly reveals from page No.28 of the compilation that the departmental inquiry was conducted against the deceased and he was suspended for almost six years and he was paid difference of salary for six years. He has submitted that this fact reveals that the deceased was permanent employee of the respondent – Corporation and the service rendered by the deceased is permanent in nature. He has submitted that there is no disciplinary action permissible against the daily wagers under any of the rules of the Corporation and, therefore, merely averments of the respondent that the deceased was, on fixed pay, cannot be a ground for rejection of the prayer of the petitioners either for appointment on compassionate ground or for compensation as per new Government Policy. He has urged to allow the present appeal and direct the respondent – Corporation to grant prayer to the petitioners. 5. Per contra, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation has vehemently submitted that as per the Government Resolution placed at page No.24 of the compilation, the service rendered as daily wager, casual worker, apprentice, ad-hoc, contract, or re-employment, the person concerned cannot be granted the benefits under this scheme and the benefits could be available only to the persons of Class III and IV who are appointed on regular basis and/or served minimum service of five years as well as the heirs of the work charged of Class III and IV. According to him, the deceased was appointed in the regular pay scale in 2006 and he has died in 2011 i.e. after 04 years and 10 months. He has submitted that the procedure regarding initiation of departmental inquiry and suspension and, thereafter, granting of arrears of salary as per the order dated 15.05.2001 which is placed at page No.28 of the compilation, cannot be a ground to grant lump sum compensation amount as per the Government Resolution. He has submitted that the designation of the deceased “Dadiya” suggests that he was not on permanent post and he was paid fixed salary. He has submitted that the deceased was made permanent in pay scale in the year 2006 only and, therefore, the earlier service rendered by him cannot be considered for the purpose of grant of lump sum compensation. He has submitted that the suspension and departmental inquiry was held with a view to fulfill the requirement of Labour Laws and, therefore, the factum of departmental inquiry and suspension and reinstatement, cannot be acquainted with the appointment as permanent employee of the service on regular basis. 5.1 According to Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel, the respondent – Corporation has specifically narrated in affidavit-in-reply which is at page No.34 of the compilation that prior to his appointment on regular basis, he was serving as “Dadiya” on daily wages and, therefore, the action of the respondent – Corporation cannot be termed as illegal and improper. He has submitted that this fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. He has submitted that this fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has properly appreciated the facts and legal aspects of the matter and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. He has urged to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the appointment of the deceased on the post of “Dadiya” since 1986. It is not dispute that the deceased was granted regular pay scale from 2006. It is also undisputed fact that the Government has issued resolution dated 05.07.2011 granting exgratia compensation to the heirs of the deceased employee who belongs to the Class III and IV service wherein there is criteria prescribed which includes minimum service of five years excluding the persons who are working as daily wager, casual worker, apprentice, ad-hoc, contract, or re-employment. However, the persons, who are recruited through regular process of recruitment and the persons working in a work charged are entitled to get exgratia payment mentioned therein. It is also undisputed fact that the deceased was suspended from 21.01.1994 to 02.02.2000 and, thereafter, he was re-employed with payment of difference of salary for the period mentioned herein above. 7. Now, considering the aforesaid facts, it appears that the deceased was serving on the post of “Dadiya”. It also reveals that since 1986 till his death, the deceased was serving in respondent – Corporation. On perusal of the materials placed on record which consists part of Special Civil Application, it is found that the respondent – Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply contesting the petition and contended that the deceased has not completed minimum service of five years on regular establishment. It also reveals from the papers that the petitioners have also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder denying the averments of the respondent – Corporation and have stated that the deceased was working on sanctioned post of “Dadiya” on fixed pay. It is averred therein that the name of the deceased in seniority list as on 24.01.2003, is at Sr.No.3. It also reveals from the papers that the petitioners have also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder denying the averments of the respondent – Corporation and have stated that the deceased was working on sanctioned post of “Dadiya” on fixed pay. It is averred therein that the name of the deceased in seniority list as on 24.01.2003, is at Sr.No.3. It is also averred therein that there is no disciplinary action permissible against the daily wagers under any of the rules of the Corporation and the deceased was suspended and departmental inquiry was held against him and, thereafter, he was taken back in service with difference of salary for a period of suspension. 8. Now, considering the factual aspects of this case and the Government Resolution, it appears that the deceased was appointed on the post of “Dadiya”. It reveals from the copy of the service book of the deceased at page No.43 onwards of the compilation that the post has been referred as “Dadiya”. It appears that there is a post of “Dadiya” in the Corporation. Now, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was working on the post of “Dadiya” since 1986. It appears from the service book of the deceased that his date of birth was 03.02.1964. It is also found that the regular appointment is made on the post of “Dadiya”. 9 From the material placed on record, it appears that the deceased was serving on the post of “Dadiya” since 1986 and the formality of regularization was awaiting. It also reveals that the period of long service on the post of “Dadiya” in fixed salary and, thereafter, regularization of his service in regular salary suggests that the deceased was working on the sanctioned post of “Dadiya”. The conduct and treatment meted out to the deceased employee by the Corporation shows that the deceased was working on the sanctioned post of “Dadiya”. Further no facts of work charged employment is shown by the respondent. But as observed hereinabove, there is no dispute that the deceased was serving on the sanctioned post of “Dadiya” since 1986 till his death. All these aspects are not considered by the respondent – Corporation. Further no facts of work charged employment is shown by the respondent. But as observed hereinabove, there is no dispute that the deceased was serving on the sanctioned post of “Dadiya” since 1986 till his death. All these aspects are not considered by the respondent – Corporation. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of this case, it is pertinent to note that had the deceased working on daily wages, then there was no need of initiation of any departmental inquiry, suspension and reinstatement as “Dadiya” and payment of salary for the period of suspension. This fact clearly suggests that the deceased was working on the post of permanent in nature. Under these circumstances, it appears that the Corporation ought to have considered all these aspects. But this fact has not been considered by the Corporation. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised. It appears that the learned Single Judge has not considered all these facts in its proper perspective and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference by this Court and the present Letters Patent Appeal is required to be allowed. 10. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3532 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent – Corporation is directed to sanction lump sum compensation as provided in Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. No order as to costs.