JUDGMENT : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2021 is allowed. Since Appellant Mr. Iqbal Hussein Abdulmiya Sheikh has expired on 05.12.2020, legal representatives are taken on record. 2. The Appellant Iqbal Hussein Abdulmiya Sheikh had approached this Court aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge passed on 13.04.2010 whereby learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the Special Civil Application (Writ Petition) No. 2293 of 1993 following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors, (2006)4 S.C.C. 1 . The petitioner/appellant is now represented by his Legal representatives ie., his widow Shabina Banu Iqbal Hussein Abdulmiyan Sheikh; son Mohammed Irfan Iqbal Hussein Sheikh; daughter Shajidabanu Iqbal Hussein Sheikh, his son Mohammed Yunus Iqbal Hussein Sheikh. 3. The Appellant/Petitioner was initially appointed as Daily Wager in Class-IV Peon by the respondent - Taluka Panchayat, Ta: Meghraj, District: Sabarkantha in the year 1985 and till 1993, he was allowed to work as Peon-cum-Daily Wager Driver in the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat. The details of his working, as given in the reply filed by the Respondent-Taluka Panchayat before the learned Single Judge, are quoted below: “That the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Honourable court and has tried falsely to show that he is in service from 1985 with one break only, while the reality is the otherwise. That the petitioner was asked to work as a daily wager throughout the period narrated by him and in fact also he was never given any status of a regular and permanent employee. That he has worked on different occasions (1) from dt. 21.2.1985 to April 1985 as a Peon as one Keshaji Sukhaji Ninama Naik retired, and (2) From dt. 1.5.1985 to 30.06.1985 as a Peon, as one Y.A. Pandya went on leave, and (3) from dt. 2.6.1985 to 21.11.1985 as a Peon as one Kalaji Jethaji Rathod, Naik, expired and (4) from dt. 21.2.1985 to April 1985 as a Peon as one Keshaji Sukhaji Ninama Naik retired, and (2) From dt. 1.5.1985 to 30.06.1985 as a Peon, as one Y.A. Pandya went on leave, and (3) from dt. 2.6.1985 to 21.11.1985 as a Peon as one Kalaji Jethaji Rathod, Naik, expired and (4) from dt. 22.11.1985 to 22.12.1985 as one Shankar Nagaji, Peon, went on leave and (5) from November 1989 to March 1990 as daily wager driver and on Jeep No. 5255 as regular driver A.A. Shaikh was appointed and (5) from November 1989 to March 1990 as daily wager driver A.A. Shaikh was appointed and (6) from April 1990 to December 1991 as a daily wager drivers, on Jeep No. G-3 as regular driver Shri A.M. Mansuri was appointed and (7) from 16.1.1992 to 30.6.1992 as daily wager driver on Jeep No. 5255 as a regular driver A.A. Shaikh went on leave and (8) from July 1992 to March 1993 as a daily wager driver on Jeep No. G-3 as regular driver S.A. Mansuri was transferred. Thus the petitioner has worked on purely daily wager basis and was never given the status and appointment of a permanent employee. Whenever regular staff was transferred or went on leave or expired or in other events, the petitioner was given daily wages duties subject to the sanction of the District authorities. 4. Since in the year 1993, the Petitioner/Appellant was sought to be terminated from the services, he approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1993, in which, an interim order was granted by Learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. K. Thakker, J.) on 16.03.1993 directing the Status-quo to be maintained. “Notice returnable on March 31, 1993. Status-quo as on today to be maintained till then. D.S. Permitted” 5. The Petitioner/Appellant, thereafter, continued in the service as Driver on the vehicle of the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat till 2019 for long number of years and finally, he was terminated from his service vide order dated 17.10.2019, which is produced as Annexure- “C” with the Restoration Application filed by the Appellant/Petitioner. 6. D.S. Permitted” 5. The Petitioner/Appellant, thereafter, continued in the service as Driver on the vehicle of the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat till 2019 for long number of years and finally, he was terminated from his service vide order dated 17.10.2019, which is produced as Annexure- “C” with the Restoration Application filed by the Appellant/Petitioner. 6. The present Letters Patent Appeal No. 414 of 2011 filed against the order of Learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1993, unfortunately came to be dismissed for default of appearance of the then Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner twice but on both the occasions, the Coordinate Bench of this Court restored the said Letters Patent Appeal and said orders were passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 on 04.10.2019 and in Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2019 on 27.01.2020 and that is how the present Appeal was heard by us today. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Nirad D. Buch now appearing for the Appellant/Petitioner substituted the earlier Learned Counsel submitted before us that it is indeed unfortunate that the Appellant/Petitioner Iqbal Hussein Abdulmiya Sheikh though he served the respondent – Taluka Panchayat for long number of years as Peon-cum-Driver, passed away from this world without getting an order of regularization, though such a prayer was made in the Special Civil Application No.2239 of 1993, which unfortunately came to be dismissed by Learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.04.2010. 8. He submitted that though as such regularization of the service may not have been granted but since by the Year-2019, when the formal termination order passed by the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat, he had almost served for about 30 years, the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat, his case ought to have been favourably considered by the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat as regular employee on the vacant post of Driver. He has drawn our attention to the Certificate issued by Taluka Development Officer, Meghraj that a post of Driver is sanctioned for the said Taluka Panchayat since 30.06.1992 and he submitted even that post was lying vacant on the date of termination of the original Appellant/Petitioner. He has drawn our attention to the Certificate issued by Taluka Development Officer, Meghraj that a post of Driver is sanctioned for the said Taluka Panchayat since 30.06.1992 and he submitted even that post was lying vacant on the date of termination of the original Appellant/Petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that even though the Appellant/Petitioner has now expired instead of treating the said Petitioner/Appellant as regular employee of the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat, a fair and reasonable cash compensation may be awarded in favour of the Legal Representatives of the deceased Appellant/Petitioner for his long number of years of service. 9. Per contra, Learned Counsel Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the Respondent - Taluka Panchayat submitted that since the Appellant/Petitioner worked only as Daily Wager or Part Time employee as per the requirements of the said Taluka Panchayat from time to time, when the regular Peon or Driver was not available and no evidence was produced by the Appellant/Petitioner that he had served continuously for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination year 1993, he is not entitled for any regularization. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 300 and State of Karnataka and Others versus G.V. Chandrashekhar, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 342 . 10. He also submitted that after 1993, the Appellant/Petitioner was continued in the service as Driver of the Respondent -Taluka Panchayat only under the Interim Order of this Court and even though a long period up to 2019, he is not entitled to regularization or to be treated as regular employee of the Respondent – Taluka Panchayat in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. 11. Having heard the Learned Counsels for the parties, we are of the opinion that though strictly speaking in the Year- 1993, when the Appellant/Petitioner approached this Court seeking regularization, he was not entitled to any regularization as he had served admittedly only as a Part Time/ Daily Wager from 1985 to 1993 for about 8(Eight) years in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case and in the afore cited judgments, but the fact also remains that from 1993 to 2019 almost for 25 years, he has served the Respondent ever largely under the interim order of the Court. Before dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1993, the petitioner continued in the service of the Respondent - Taluka Panchayat as Driver and there was also a post of Driver available with the Respondent - Taluka Panchayat. In these circumstances for a long period of service of the Appellant/Petitioner with the Respondent - Taluka Panchayat, almost 30 years, we cannot deny that even the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where an exception for cases of persons, not illegally appointed and who had served for more than 10 years could be considered for regularization, could have been applied to the Appellant/ Petitioner had he lived long enough, but unfortunately, the Appellant/Petitioner has expired on 05.12.2020, before any such relief in the form of regularization or reinstatement could be granted by this Court. 12. Therefore, the only option now left is to grant some suitable relief to the Legal Representatives of the Appellant that is to award some monetary compensation. In the present case in view of the 30 years long period of service of the Appellant/Petitioner rendered to the Respondent - Taluka Panchayat, we consider, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of post of Driver which he held for more than about 25 years and before which he was serving almost as a leave reserve on the post of Peon who were on leave or as Driver. A lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5.05 Lakhs would meet the ends of justice to dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal. A lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5.05 Lakhs would meet the ends of justice to dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, without deciding the present Letters Patent Appeal on merits as such or without interfering with the termination order also, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal with the direction to the Respondent - Taluka Panchayat to pay the compensation of Rs. 5.05 Lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Five Thousand Only), by way of cheques in favour of three Legal Representatives of the deceased Appellant/Petitioner to the extent indicated below. 13. The widow of the Appellant/Petitioner - Shabina Banu Iqbal Hussein Abdulmiyan Sheikh may be given 50(Fifty) percentage of the aforesaid compensation namely Rs. 2.50 Lakhs and the remaining three Legal Representatives namely (1) Mohammed Irfan Iqbal Hussein Sheikh (Son); (2) Shajidabanu Iqbal Hussein Sheikh(Daughter) and (3) Mohammed Yunus Iqbal Hussein Sheikh (Son) may get 1/3rd (One Third) each of the remaining 50(Fifty) percentage amount of compensation i.e., Rs. 85,000/- each. 14. The said compensation to the Legal Representatives shall be paid within a period of 3(Three) months from today and the Compliance Report of the same will be produced before this court with reference to this case within the next period of 4(Four) weeks i.e., on or before the end of 31st October 2021. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.