The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to have their past services counted for pensionary benefits, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and relevant government resolutions.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

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 petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to hold and declare that the action on the part of the respondents in not making full payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners by counting their entire length of service from the date of joining till the date of retirement as illegal and a further direction to fix the pension of the petitioners by counting their services from the date of joining till the date of retirement.

4. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioners were serving as Rojamdars. They were serving uninterruptedly till the date of their superannuation. The petitioners were extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and given such benefits on the regular pay scale on completion of 10 years of service. While counting the terminal benefits, the order of service prior to the date of their regularization were not counted.

5.Mr.V.K.Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in light of the decision in case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT (MAA & M) DEPARTMENT and Another Versus SAMUDABHAI JYOTIBHAI BHEDI & other reported in 2017 (4) GLR 2952, even initial service prior to the benefit of regularisation has to be counted for the purposes of pension.

6. Accordingly, he would rely on an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.19659 of 2019 dated 28.03.2022.

7. Having heard learned counsel Mr.Joshi for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr.Desai for the State, the order passed in Special Civil Application No.19659 of 2019 dated 28.03.2022 reads as under:

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 as well as Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.2.

2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in not making full payment of pensionary benefits to them by counting their entire length of service from the date of joining till the date of retirement as illegal. They also have prayed for benefits of leave encashment.

3. The case of the petitioners is that while granting pensionary benefits to the petitioners, their date for the purposes of counting service is taken from the date when they completed ten years of service for the purposes of the entitlement as per GR dated 17.10.1988. Service details of each of the petitioners are placed on record which indicate that for the purposes of granting pension, their initial date of appointment is not considered.

4. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on an order passed in similar matter by the coordinate Bench of this Court in SCA No.11086 of 2019 dated 21.8.2019. He further requested this Court to pass a similar order in this matter too. The order dated 21.8.2019 reads as under:

“Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krina Calla for the respondent state.

2. The following are the prayers made in this petition.

“(i) to hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not making full payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner 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 petitioner by counting his service from date of joining until the date of retirement and fix the pension accordingly;

(ii) to hold and declare that petitioner is entitled to all other retiral benefits including benefit of leave encashment and be pleased to further direct the respondents to pay amount of leave enca