Biren Vaishnav, J.

Year 2018 has almost half gone and we are still called upon to decide and sit over and re-appreciate what has been finally set at rest in the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in 1983 in the case of State Of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Son, (1984) AIR(SC) 161.

2. The opening words of the author of the judgement rendered then, still sound so true and therefore it will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the same to begin our analysis of the facts and the judgement that we render:

"The attitude of the State of Gujarat in these cases has indeed left us puzzled and wondering. On the one hand, there are lakhs of employees working under various Panchayat Institutions, call them Government servants or no, to whom the benefits of the recommendations of the two Pay Commissions, the Sarela and the Desai Commissions, have been extended while on the other hand, there is a microscopic number (comparatively) of about six thousand employees of the lowest category, also working under Panchayat Institutions, who are denied the benefits of those recommendations, on the sole ground of a birth-mark, if we may so call it, since they are denied the benefits because before they came to work under the Panchayat Institutions, they were employed in municipalities while the others were Government servants to start with. The unfairness and the injustice of the distinction is patent, whatever legal justification may be put forward. Surely, the State, dedicated as it is to socialism, equality and economic justice and enjoined by the Directive Principles to secure the right to work, a living wage, equal pay for equal work and so on cannot make such a distinction But the distinction has been made; it is sought to be sustained by those making it and we are constrained to examine whether there is any Constitutional or other legal sustenance for the distinction. We did request the Counsel for the State of Gujarat to communicate with his clients to find out if the benefits cannot gracefully be extended to the erstwhile employees of municipalities presently working under Panchayat Institutions also. We are told that the answer of the State of Gujarat is in the negative."

3. The facts in brief that give rise to the present appeals are as under:

3.1 These appeals arise at the hands of the State Of Gujarat and the Panchayat authorities who yet again want to deprive a panchayat servant of his pensionary dues, on the ground that the employee concerned was a part of the non-converted gram panchayat and his appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and his appointment was illegal and irregular.

3.2 The original petitioner/respondent in this appeal, (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") was appointed as an Octroi Clerk in October 1962 with the Kayavarohan Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to a notice placed in the Office of the Panchayat in September 1962 for appointment of Octroi Clerk, the petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was interviewed and thereafter appointed to the said post. The respondent Panchayat passed a resolution in its meeting held on 19.1.1963 approving the petitioner's appointment. During the service tenure with the Panchayat, the petitioner was given all the regular benefits of Pay/Dearness Allowance and Pay-Revisions available to State Government employees according to the Pay Commissions at the relevant point of time.

3.3 After having completed the age of 58 years, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 29.06.2002 to the Sarpanch that since the petitioner was appointed on 1.10.1962 and had completed 58 years of age he requested for retirement and also prayed that he be paid pension and gratuity as per Government Rules. On 29.06.2002 itself the Talati-cum-Mantri passed a Resolution permitting the petitioner to retire with effect from 30.06.2002 with a recommendation that the benefits of pension and gratuity be paid to the petitioner as per gove