JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri for the appellant Executive Engineer, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for respondents no. 1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for respondent no. 3.

2. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 of learned Single Judge. Thereby, learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the private respondents-original petitioners. It was held that the petitioners had completed more than 10 years of qualifying service completing 240 days in a year to be entitled for pensionary benefits.

2.1 The operative directions read as under:

“The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 need to have completed 15 and 17 years of service respectively wherein they have rendered more than 240 days of service i.e. from the counting years 1976 to 2005 in case of petitioner no. 1 and 1981 to 2003 in case of petitioner no. 2 for the purposes of computing of pension. Based on this computation, the respondents are directed to compute the terminal benefits of the deceased-husband of the petitioners and consequentially grant benefits of family pension to the petitioners. In case of petitioner no. 1, the family pension shall be granted from the date of the death of the petitioner no. 1’s husband i.e. from 28.06.2004 and in case of petitioner no. 2 the pension shall be paid from 30.08.2003 till 04.02.2008 i.e. the date of death of her husband. After the said period she shall be granted family pension.”

3. Two petitioners by filing Special Civil Application, prayed as under:

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

(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 husbands 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.”

3.1 Thus the petitioners prayed for granting of pensionary benefits by counting entire length of their service and further prayed for the benefit of leave encashment as also other pensionary benefits such as gratuity.

3.2 The case of the petitioners was that they served as Rojamdar in the office of respondent no. 2 Executive Engineer, Panchayat, Road & Building Division, Lunawada, Mahisagar. It was the case that their services were uninterrupted and continuous as declared under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also their case that the benefits of State Government's Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were extended to them. However, it was the grievance that the pensionary benefits were not paid, though such benefits were available in the said Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

3.3 It was stated by the petitioners that they had earlier approached the Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1574 of 2020. The petitioners succeeded and their Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. It was the grievance that the petitioners were not paid the benefits.

3.4 It was contended that the employees who worked under the respondents were the deceased husbands of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they worked right from 1977. The pensionary benefits appears to have been denied to them on the ground that they had not completed 240 days in a year and continuous service were not rendered by them. They were therefore not given the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was the case that while the husband of the petiti