JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State as well as Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2.

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

3. Heard Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

4. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case of the petitioners is that they are legal heirs of the deceased Ramabhai Nathabhai Meda, who served as Class-IV employee under the respondent No.2 and died while discharging duties in the year 2007. He rendered services with the respondent No.2 from 21.10.1973 to 21.4.2007 continuously. Despite having rendered 34 years of service, on the death of Shri Ramabhai Nathabhai Meda, neither the family received any terminal benefits or family pension.

5. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on a decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 dated 18.3.2011 in the case of State of Gujarat and another v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and another and submit that once the petitioner was granted the benefit of the GR dated 17.10.1988 on completion of ten years of service with effect from 1.4.2005, his past services could not have been ignored for the purposes of computing pension. He would rely on paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the decision which read as under :

“4. Bare reading of above stipulations contained in the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 makes it crystal clear that upon completion of ten years of service, in terms of the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on or before 1.10.1988, daily rated employees to whom the G.R. applied were to be treated as permanent employees with concomitant benefits. It is further clarified and resolved in clause (10) of subsequent resolution dated 18.7.1994 that the employees, who were completing 5/10/15 years of continuous service due to which whose categories would change should be immediately accorded benefits of the category in which such employees would fall. Government Resolution dated 18.7.1994 is, according to its own preamble, meant to supersede earlier instructions issued vide government resolution dated 3.11.1990. The instructions are primarily meant to regulate treatment of daily rated employees, who had completed one or more years of service on 1.10.1988, with the stipulation that such employees shall continue to be treated as daily rated employees. Detailed instructions have been issued in said government resolution for categorizing such daily rated employees and maintaining their seniority lists, as also for regulating their pension and termination of their service by way of retrenchment. At the end, in Clause 15 of the government resolution, it is stipulated that the word 'permanent' as used in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is intended to provide protection of service but not for treating such employees on regular establishment of the government.

5. As noted earlier, subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 is expressly superseding the instructions contained in government resolution dated 3.11.1990 but does not supersede original G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Under such circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order. However, no ground or rational basis could be made out for grant of most of the benefits to most of the employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and for denial of