Employees are entitled to the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and the earlier pension scheme continues to enure to the benefits of those who enter service before 01.04.2005.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 6 and Mr.Alkesh Shah learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction that he be granted the benefits of 6th and 7th pay commission.

4. As pointed out by Mr.Dipak Dave learned advocate for the petitioner, a proposal for granting such benefits of 6th and 7th pay commission benefits is pending before the concerned respondent viz. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and a decision on the proposal shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The other prayer in the petition is that the respondents be directed to take necessary steps and cover the case of the petitioner in the GPF scheme.

6. It is the stand of the respondents that since the proposal of regularization was sent by the department on 24.11.2014, which was post 01.04.2005, the petitioner’s case would be governed by the new pension scheme.

7. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was working as a wire-man with the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. He prayed for the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. A demand was raised for such benefits before the Labour Court, Godhara, in Reference No.2 of 2005.

8. Pending the demand, his services were terminated.

The Labour Court, rejected the reference which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8818 of 2009. The coordinate bench of this court vide an oral judgment dated 11.10.2013 held as under:

“6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, the Labour Court has erred in recording reasoning that, since at the time of initial engagement of the petitioner, no procedure was followed, he was not entitled to the benefit as per the policy of the Government as contained in the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is not in dispute that, with a view to see that a daily wager appointed by the Authorities of the Government does not remain a daily wager even after years and decades, the Government in its wisdom had appointed a Committee headed by a Minister to suggest measures in that regard and on the recommendations of such Committee, after careful consideration, it was resolved by the Government that, a daily wager, on completion of certain years of service, shall be paid wages at the minimum of the pay-scale which is otherwise given to a regular employees, and after certain years of service thereafter, he will start earning yearly increments, etc. It is also not in dispute that in all departments of the Government, more particularly in Public Works Department (now separately known as Roads & Building and Irrigation Department) and also in Forest Department, because of the field requirement, hundreds and thousands of such persons were engaged, for whom this policy was formulated by the Government, and further that, even now such appointments are being made. If the object and reason of this policy is kept in view, the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, that since procedure was not followed, the petitioner cannot be extended benefits of this Resolution, goes to the very root of the matter, to the extent of scrapping the policy itself, since there is no procedure which is followed at the time of engaging such daily wagers. Under these circumstances, the reason recorded by the Labour Court needs to be interfered with. It also needs to be recorded that, the benefit which is asked for by the petitioner, and which is denied by the Labour Court, is that benefit, which is extended to thousands of similarly situated workm