ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Samir Gohil for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi for the respondent-State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner raises a grievance as regards non-consideration of the case of the original petitioner-late employee for grant of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 inspite of the fact that the original employee had worked from the year 1984 till the year 2016 with the respondents.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Gohil, more particularly considering the Chart which is annexed at Page No.9- 10 of the present petition, it would clearly appear that while the late employee appears to have worked for approximately 34 years, it would also appear that the late employee had worked for more than 10 years, more particularly the employee completing 240 days in each year prior to 31.03.2005, and thereby, entitling the late employee/his family members to claim grant of pension/family pension as per the policy framed under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

4. Furthermore, it also appears that the Chart at Page No. 9-10 has been prepared by the Executive Engineer, Damanganga Canal Section, Balitha-Vapi, therefore at this stage, in the considered opinion of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner could be assuaged if the respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, more particularly as per the period of employment as mentioned in the attendance chart at Page No. 9-10 of the petition. At this stage, before directing the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate certain judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, whereby the scope and ambit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been explained. For the benefit of the respondents, some of the observations of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on this issue are reproduced hereinbelow :

4.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest and Employees’ Union, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 248, at paragraph 14, has observed as thus:-

“14.Having regard to the above, we are confining our discussion to the aforesaid exceptions taken by the appellant. In the first instance, it is pointed out by the appellant that even if the respondents become permanent, they would be entitled to be fitted in the job description in terms of the Rules. What is (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. emphasised is that even after regularisation, their pay scales cannot be more than the pay which is given to the employees who are taken on permanent basis. This appears to be a very sound argument. The only plea was that whatever is given to such employees in other departments, same benefit be extended to the respondents as well. It is difficult to countenance this submission which we find to be legally impermissible. That is hardly any justifiable response to rebut the same. It is to be kept in mind that members of respondent union were all engaged on daily wage basis. No doubt, the appellant Government decided to confer certain benefits upon these daily wage workers depending upon the number of years of service they put in. Judgment dated July 09, 2013 proceeds on that basis. Under certain circumstances, namely, on completion of specified number of years of service on daily wage basis, these daily wage workers are entitled to become permanent. On attaining the status of permanency/regular employees, they become at par with those employees who were appointed on permanent basis from beginning, after undergoing the proper selection procedure on proving their merit. These daily wagers cannot be given the pay scales which are even better than the pay scales given to regularly appointed employees. The Rules are statutory in nature (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the provis