The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and the relevance of past continuous service for extending benefits under the resolution.

ORDER :

1 Heard Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, for respondent No.2.

2. Panchmahal District Panchayat has challenged the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Labour Court at Godhra in Recovery Application No. C-2. 102 of 2008 directing the petitioners to release the benefit of pension in favour of the respondent No.1.

2.1 Assailing the order of the Labour Court in the Recovery Application, Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate, would submit that the respondent who was born on 10.04.1948 was offered work as a daily wager on 21.11.1976 without following the due procedure of recruitment.

He was offered work based on the availability of the work and funds. He was also extended the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on completion of service of five years as well as 10 years as a daily wager with effect from 01.11.2002 and 01.04.2007 respectively, as for such benefit, the pre condition of having worked for 240 days is required to be set aside.

2.2 Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate, would further submit that as the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 was 10.04.1948, he superannuated on 30.04.2008. In other words, on receiving the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on completion of five years and ten years with effect from 01.04.2007, he had completed just one year in service in the running pay-scale. He was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of pension.

2.3 Reliance was placed on the Resolution dated 24.03.2006 in support of his submission that by virtue of this resolution, the Panchayat had rightly not extended the benefits of the said resolution.

3. Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, would submit that orders akin to the orders passed in the recovery application in the present petition was a subject matter of challenge by the Panchayat, where the applications were rejected and the petitioners / workmen had to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 12350 of 2016 and allied matters. The Court, having examined the Scheme of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 together with the judgement of this Court in Tribhovan Jerambhai vs. Deputy Executive Engineer., reported in [1998 (2) GLH 1]., had set aside the orders passed rejecting the recovery applications and also considered resolution dated 24.03.2006 which is pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in paras 11 to 15 of the decision held as under:

“11. Only question which ought to have been asked by the Labour Court was: whether the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 has been interpreted by this High Court, and if yes, whether the High Court has held that the past continuous service of the workman are required to be taken into consideration for extending the benefits under G.R. dated 17.10.1988. If the answer to the said question was in affirmative, there remained nothing to be adjudicated and thus recovery applications were maintainable.

12. Even otherwise, in the opinion of this Court, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcing the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 would lie in absence of the serious dispute of the facts of the case. Concededly, G.R. dated 17.10.1988 has been applied to the petitioners and, therefore, its applicability is not in dispute. The only dispute raised by the State in its affidavit is with regard to the interpretation of the said G.R. which has already been interpreted in Tribhovanbhai (supra), and thus, applying the ratio laid down therein, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents are not right when they say that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the services post regularisation only must be reckoned.

13. Reliance placed on G.R. dated 24.3.2006 in support of the above contention is also misconceived since the said issue has been set at rest in Nirubha Vajubhai Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat and three others [2016 Lawsuit (Guj) 155]. Th