JUDGMENT :

1. Since the common issues are involved in this group of petitions, the same are heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment and order.

2. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. All the petitioners and the deceased employees, who are represented by the legal heirs, have been appointed on the post of Sweeper (Class-IV) employees in the respondent Nagar Panchayat before the year 1967.

4. The entire issue with regard to the payment of pension and retirement benefits hinges on the interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2016) 12 SCC 801. It is pertinent to note that in the case before the Supreme Court, the very same Panchayat i.e. Okha Gram was the party respondent and the issue also pertains to conferring of pension in cases of Class-IV employees who are appointed prior to 1967. The year 1967 would be very relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the present writ petitions, since as per the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which came into force, the recruitment of employees of Nagarpalika was required to be done in terms of Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.

5. The petitioners have retired after rendering almost more than 30 years and in some cases more than 39 years of service and are denied the benefits of pension and hence, they are constrained to file this writ petitions, after decision was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra).

6. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners cannot be discriminated and their pension cannot be denied only because it is the case of the respondent authorities that such employees were not appointed in accordance with the Rules of 1967. He has submitted that the State authorities in fact should have extended the benefits of pension to the present petitioners as they are similarly situated employee who was before the Supreme Court. Further, reliance is also placed by learned advocate Mr.Joshi on the Circular dated 26.02.2008 issued by the Government of Gujarat, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development, whereby all the District Development Officers of the State were ordered to initiate procedure to regularise the service of the employees who are appointed from 01.04.1963 to 05.06.1984. It is submitted that the exercise was required to be undertaken in case of the present petitioners also, but they were not regularized in service, which has resulted into the denial of pension. It is submitted by him that the cut-off date 05.06.1984 is already provided in the Circular, which indicates that in irregular appointment made after that date and in those cases the entire burden would be borne by the Gram Panchayat or the Nagar Panchayat and the concerned officers who make such appointments would be held responsible for the same. He has submitted that the aforesaid Circular is also referred by the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) and the petitioners, who are similarly situated should be extended the benefits of resolution.

7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the District Development Officer has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench dated 24.12.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.81 of 2020. He has submitted that the Division Bench, after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) and various other judgments and after examination of the concerned Rules, has held that the employees who are not appointed on regular sanctioned posts, are not entitled for any retirement benefits for pension. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioners were irregularly appointed by the Gram Panchayat by passing resolutions, hence