ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and 4 and Mr.Pradip Patel, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

2 The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for a relief that the respondents be directed to declare the action in not considering the services of the deceased husband of the petitioner as continuous when, in fact, the petitioner should have been treated to have completed 240 days in each year or service based on the principles laid down by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court which shall be referred to hereinafter.

3 The facts in brief would indicate that after 21 years of service, the petitioner’s husband expired on 30.06.19983 According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner had rendered 21 years of continuous service taking his initial date of appointment as 09.07.1977 and his date of death being 30.06.1998. The case of the petitioner is that had the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 been rightly extended to the husband of the petitioner, based on such extended benefits on the basis of he rendering continuous service, the petitioner would have been entitled to the family pension.

4 Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a statement of breakup of service details (page 30) and submit that by the impugned order, the respondents have interpreted that the petitioner’s husband was actually in service for two years. He having completed 240 days in the year 1979 and 1997 retrospectively.He would submit that, in fact, if the Division Bench decisions are considered, based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation., reported in (1985) 4 SCC 71., the number of working years would increase from two to twelve. He would further submit that if in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, computation of Sundays and leave and other public holidays is added to the benefit for the years 1980, 1981 and from the years 1989 to 1986, he would admittedly complete 12 years of service as three years from 1979 to 1981 and nine years from

1989 to 1997 would be the relevant period for consideration.

5 Ms.Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would support the decision of denying the benefits of pension.

6 Considering the decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1495 of 1997 decided on 06.08.1998, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

“This appeal is directed against judgment dated November 10, 1997 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no. 7539/97 by which prayer claimed by the appellant to direct the respondents to pay pension to him has been rejected.

The appellant worked as a daily wager under the respondent no.1 from September 24 to October 13, 1989. He retired from service on October 13, 1989. According to him, he was entitled to pension and, therefore, approached the Surat District Dalit Seva Sangh for taking-up his cause. The President of the Sangh wrote a letter dated November 8, 1994 to respondent no.3 requesting him to do needful in the matte of grant of pension to the appellant. The Sangh received a letter dated December 22, 1995 from respondent no.1 to the effect that the appellant was not entitled to pension in view of the Government resolution dated October 17, 1988. From the letter dated January 7, 1997, which was addressed by respondent no.1 to the President of Sangh, it is evident that the benefit of pension was not granted to the appellant, as according to the respondents, the apppellant had put in 8 years of continuous service, wherein he had worked for more than 240 days in every year and as the appellant had not put in 10 years of continuous service, wherein he had worked for more than 240 days, the appellant was not