JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions on the respondents to confer the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2014 and accordingly grant him retirement benefits.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by catena of judgments of the Division Bench as well as this Court. He has placed reliance on the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017, order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.5211 of 2020, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd, AIR SC 1776 and judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.15074 of 2020. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD Employees Union & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 417 and in the case of The State of Gujarat v. PWD And Forest Employees Union & Ors., 2019 (3) SCALE 642

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager with effect from 01.04.1974 in the office of the respondent no.4. He was terminated from service on 01.04.1996, which constrained him to raise an industrial dispute. The said dispute culminated in Reference (LCJ) No.406 of 1999. The Labour Court, Godhra, vide its award dated 21.07.2009 set aside the termination of the petitioner and directed the respondent to reinstate him in service with 20% back wages. It is pertinent to note that no direction with regard to continuity of service was recorded in the order. The respondent challenged the said award in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.7983 of 2010, which was dismissed by the order dated 27.01.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.7983 of 2010.

3.2. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012 since he was not paid the gratuity, he filed proceedings before the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority by the order dated 24.03.2014 directed the respondents to pay gratuity considering his 22 years of service with 10% interest. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.08.2014, whereby the amount was enhanced from Rs.12,936/- to Rs.83,293/- on the basis of 24 years of service.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the Resolution dated 15.09.2014, however, the same has not been conferred upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not rendered continuous service as he has not completed 240 days.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even if the Labour Court has not observed with regard to continuity of service, once the reinstatement is ordered, the employee is deemed to be treated in service from the date of termination till his reinstatement or his retirement. He has submitted that the law is well settled on this issue and the judgments, as narrated hereinabove, will cover the issue.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dave has further submitted that the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the resolution dated 15.09.2014 to the petitioner, is not in dispute however the only issue is with regard to treating his service continuous in view of the award passed by the Labour Court. Thus, he has submitted that the respondents may be directed to confer the benefits flowing from the aforesaid resolutions and pay the pension, leave encashment etc., considering his service from 1974 till his retirement.

4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Dave has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab And Ors, (2002) 9 SCC 492. He has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 28.12.