ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for grant of terminal benefits payable on her retirement on attaining the age superannuation, after having completed 25 years of service in the Government.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings are that on 23.03.1982 certain proceedings were initiated by the Taluk Development Board, Sindhanur, Raichur District for appointment of a qualified person to the post of Conductress. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the petitioner was selected to be appointed and was also appointed on 18.05.1982 against a clear vacancy on temporary basis with a pay scale of Rs.280-500 with all other allowances admissible to the petitioner. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, the proceedings were approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board Sindhanur as was required by law. It transpires that the petitioner was deputed to work at the Taluk Panchayat office on its formation right from 1987 and was later shifted to Social Welfare Department. After working with the Taluk Development Board, Zilla Panchayat and the Social Welfare Department on the strength of the aforesaid appointment, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation which was 58 years at that point in time on 31.01.2007.

3. By the time the petitioner retired from service, she had completed 25 years of service, which according to the petitioner was regular in the light of the petitioner being appointed pursuant to proceedings drawn up by the Taluk Development Board and its approval by the competent authority. The appointment was against an existing vacancy with a particular pay scale and allowances applicable and being granted to the petitioner.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was appointed in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. After the petitioner retiring on attaining the age of superannuation, no terminal benefits were paid, which drove the petitioner to penury. On not being paid, any terminal benefit pursuant to her retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner submitted plethora of representations to the authorities seeking such payment of pension and other terminal benefits, that not being paid has led the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court in the present petition.

5. Heard Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner though has rendered 25 years of service against sanctioned vacancy she is not paid any pension on the ground that her services were never regularized during the lifetime.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would in unison contend that the petitioner is not entitled to any terminal benefits as she entered service as daily wage employee, retired as daily wage employee and therefore no terminal benefits can be paid to the her.

8. Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed on 18.05.1982 against an existing vacancy in terms of the rules obtaining at the relevant point in time and the appointment was pursuant to resolution/proceedings of the Taluka Development Board on 23.03.1982. The Pay scale of Rs.280-500 with admissible allowances was also granted to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was sought to be considered for regularization of her service for which the respondents had sought all records from the hands of the Taluka Development Board for such consideration. But before any decision could be taken on the records that were summoned, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years.

9. It is also germane to notice t