Continuous service rendered as daily wager can be considered and clubbed with the services rendered as work charge employee for the purpose of pension.

G.R. UDHWANI, J.

1. The petitioner is Rojamdar since 21/09/1986. The petitioner claims benefit of regularization from the date of joining of the service. However, he was conferred the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 from the date of his regularization on 19/06/1991 on the ground that as per resolution dated 24/03/2006, the date of confirmation i.e. 01/04/1972 would be the date from which the benefit under GR dated 17/10/1988 can be given. The petitioner was denied the benefit for service between 21/09/1986 and 17/06/2005. The petitioner superannuated on 31/05/2006 and his case for pension was recommended on 15/05/2006 and ultimately the impugned decision dated 20/06/2006 was taken.

2. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent controverting the averments made by the petitioner.

3. The issue involved herein is whether the services for the purpose of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 are to be reckoned from the date of joining of the service or from the date of confirmation of the daily wager. This issue no more res intergra in view of decision in SCA No. 13143 of 2004 by this Court by oral judgment dated 02/07/2014 wherein following observations were made:

“4. It is not necessary to address the issue in greater detail in view of decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1913 of 2001 on 13.02.2006 wherein also this Court considered almost an identical case and addressed itself on the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 also and directed the concerned respondent to pay the pension to the petitioner there, after taking into consideration his services rendered as daily wagers as well The learned Single Judge in turn relied upon a decision of Division Bench in Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai Rathod v. Deputy Executive Engineer (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1495 of 1997) decided on 6.8.1998 and Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai v. Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, R&B Department, 1998 (2) GLH 1.

5. Since the questions of law have been extensively addressed by this Court in the afore-mentioned petition, it is not necessary to once again consider in detail the said questions of law namely whether the continuous service rendered as daily wager by an employee can be considered and clubbed with the services rendered by him as work charge employee for the purpose of pension?

6. The learned AGP, however, strenuously urged that the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was not available to the petitioner, since before the date of the resolution, he was already absorbed as work charge employee in the year 1986 whereas the resolution was passed on 17.10.1988

7 As indicated hereinabove, in an identical case, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the aforesaid decisions has taken a view aforesaid, and therefore, this argument does not help the learned AGP. The learned AGP, however, relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 wherein a proposition of law that the services rendered as daily wager prior to being borne in cadre, cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the eligibility for promotion.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, it is required to be noted that this Court is not dealing with the case of promotion. As discussed above, for the purpose of pension, various courts have ruled that such services are required to be counted.

9. In above view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to pay the pension to the petitioner taking into consideration his date of appointment in the year 1974.”

4. The coordinate Bench of this Court in SCA NO. 16904 of 2015 decided by on 09/02/2016 has also made following observations on the similar issue:

“7. Mr. D.G. Shukla, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a settled position of law that the continuity of service could not have been denied once the services are regularized. He seeks to rely on a decision of this Court rendered by a learned Single