The main legal point established in the judgment is that past services of daily wagers, when they completed 240 days continuous service as per section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, qualify for pension. The court emphasized the need to reckon the entire past services of daily wagers, which were continuous, for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 4, Mr.Shastri, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, places reliance on an oral judgement passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8562 of 2022 dated 09.09.2022, which read as under:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents.

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

3. The short issue in this petition is that the deceased father of the petitioner, who has otherwise earned the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is not being paid pension ignoring the past services rendered by him from the initial date of appointment. Looking to the service book of the deceased employee, the father of the petitioner has been shown to have been placed in fix pay in the year 1995 and was placed in the pay-scale with effect from 31.03.2000, in pursuance to the Government resolution dated 17.10.1988. The father of the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.01.2008. The only reason put forth by the authorities to deny the petitioner the pension is that after his father was made permanent, he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service, however if the date of joining of the father of the petitioner is considered, the father of the petitioner has evidently completed the qualifying period to be entitled to pension as per law laid down in Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi reported in 2017(4) GLR 2952.

4. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on order dated 18.09.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No.14137 of 2019 which reads as under:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of the parties appearing through their respective learned advocates, the petition was taken up for final consideration today.

1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Dr. Venugopal Patel waives service of Rule for the respondent State and its authorities.

1.2 Heard learned advocate Ms. Nidhi Trivedi for learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:

“(i) to hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not making full payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners by counting their entire length of service from date of joining till date of retirement as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioners by counting their service from date of joining until the date of retirement and fix the pension accordingly;

(ii) to hold and declare that petitioners are entitled to all other retiral benefits including benefit of leave encashment and be pleased to further direct the respondents to pay amount of leave encashment of leave standing in the account of the petitioners;

(iii) to direct the respondents to pay difference of pensionary benefits, gratuity amount and leave encashment with 18% interest from the date when it fell due;”

3. The two petitioners herein served under the office of Executive Engineer (Road and Building), respondent herein for long 20 years and 36 years, respectively. Petitioner No.1 joined the office of respondent No.2 with effect from 23.9.1989 whereas, petitioner No.2 started his service from 21.3.1982. Petitioner No.1 retired on 31.5.2018. Petitioner No.2 retired on 30.4.2018. They put in long number of years as above. They served continuously as contemplated