The central legal point established in the judgment is that the period of 10 years as a daily wager should be considered for the grant of pension and gratuity, in accordance with relevant legal provisions and court precedents.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioners.

2. The prayer in the petition is to consider the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and grant gratuity and pension accordingly as per the order passed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 8281 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working as daily wagers with the respondent for more than 25 years and a copy of statement showing their date of appointment, date of retirement etc is annexed to the petition.

4. The petitioners filed a petition before this court being Special Civil Application No. 8281 of 2014 whereby the court observed on 14.07.2015 as under :

“6. Ms. Pathak, the learned AGP vehemently submitted that the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 does not provide for the benefit of the unavailed privilege leave. I am not impressed by such submission as this aspect has been well taken care of by the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above.

6. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to calculate the amount towards the encashment of the unavailed privilege leave within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order, and make the necessary payment to the petitioners while calculating the same the decision of the learned Single Judge referred to above in the case of Tribhuvanbahi Jairambhai shall be kept in mind. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.”

5. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 2016 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 24.02.2016. SLP preferred against the same before the Apex Court was also dismissed.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that another employee being one Pradyuman Maganlal Badheka preferred Misc. Civil Application for modification of order dated 14.07.2015. This court vide order dated 12.04.2019 allowed the said application and directed to consider the period of ten years put in by the applicant as a daily wager for the purposes of grant of pension and gratuity.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that in view of the order passed in the application for modification of order, the petitioners herein are also entitled to the said relief of considering the ten years of service as daily wagers to grant the benefit of pension and gratuity. He submitted that similarly situated employee named Pradyuman Maganlal Badheka approached this court for payment of gratuity from his initial date of appointment and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to the said benefit.

8. This court on 12.04.2019 passed the following order:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. K.P. Raval, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the opponents.

2. By this application, the applicant – original petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

8(A) be pleased to allow the present application and be further pleased to direct the respondents to consider 10 years of service of the applicant which the applicant has spent as daily-wager, for the purpose of grant of pension and gratuity and modify the order dated 14/07/2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.8289 of 2014;

(B) be further pleased to allow the original prayer (B) sought in the original SCA No.8289/2014;

(C) be further pleased to condone the delay, if any, in filing the present application;

(D) any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;”

3. The case of the applicant in his own words as pleaded in his application is as under:

3.1 That the applicant is the citizen of India and has approached this Hon'ble Court filing above petition wherein the applicant has sought the following prayer in the original petition.

“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and/