JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayer(s):-

“12(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent’s authorities to fix the pension of the petitioner, and be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the regular pension to the petitioner within the period which may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent’s authorities to pay arrears of the pension to the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.2010 till realization, with interest within the period, which may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

(C) ...

(D) ...

(E) ...”

2. The claim of the petitioner is for the entitlement of pension, as according to the petitioner though she has been working since 1994 till 2003 as a Field Worker and ultimately, was made permanent by an order dated 07.03.2006 giving the effect of permanency to the employees including the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2004.

3. It is the case where the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2010 and despite the petitioner having put in sufficient number of service, the claim of the petitioner for the pension was not considered.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in earlier round of litigation, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Alternative Disputes Resolution Mechanism before this Court and this Court had allowed the claim of the petitioner in so far as gratuity and leave encashment is concerned and before the authority also, the service period of the petitioner from 1993 to 2010 i.e. to say is 17 years was considered and benefits were accordingly given to the petitioner.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to such orders being passed before the Alternative Disputes Resolution Mechanism on 30.04.2010 and 25.06.2010.

6. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pension in view of the petitioner not having qualifying service, as provided for under Rule 11.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural University Employees’ Pension Rules.

7. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner was only a Daily Wager and as she has completed, she was made permanent in the Year-2004 and has retired in Year-2010, she has not completed the qualifying the period of service for entitlement to pension.

8. Learned advocate for the respondent drew attention of this Court to Rule 11.1 and 13.1 which provides for the qualifying the service of minimum 10 years.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the fact that the petitioner was employed as Field Worker from the year 1994 till 2003 cannot be disputed in view of documents placed on record by the petitioner, which includes the salary slips issued by the respondent-university in the name of the petitioner for the duty discharged by her during this period. In the receipts, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was engaged as a Field Worker on Daily Wage basis. It is on record that the petitioner made a representation along with the other employees for the purpose of permanency and as per the Scheme, as the petitioner had put in requisite number of years, as Field Worker on Daily Wage Basis, the case was considered and accordingly, an order was passed on 07.03.2006 for 19 employees out of the which the name of the petitioner is reflected at Sr.No.14. The effect of permanency was given with effect from 01.01.2004. The proceedings before the Alternative Disputes Resolution Mechanism, the order came to be passed firstly, on 30.04.2010, which would read as under:-

“Applicant is present. Mr. Ashokbhai Dudhat, Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Research Center, Amreli is also present.

The period from 1993 to 2010 would amount to 17 years and so retiral benefits on that basis may be available to the ap