ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia for the respondents through video conference.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy raised in this petition in narrow compass, the same is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“PRAYERS

6. The petitioner prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honorable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to :

(A) hold and declare that petitioner is entitled to be continued in service till 31.07.2019 considering his age of 60 years as provided in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and consequently, direction may please be issued to fix his pay notionally till that date for the purpose of pension and other retirement dues, and (B) direct the respondent authorities to revise pay of petitioner as per sixth and seventh pay commission and then finalize his pension case of petitioner and make payment of pension and other retirement dues considering his entire service except those years which are not counted as per settlement between the petitioner and authorities, and (C) direct the respondent authorities to pay arrears flowing from above prayer clause with interest at the rate which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (D) award exemplary cost of this petition, and (E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to finalize pension case of petitioner after revising, pay of petitioner as per 6th and 7th pay commission as has been granted to other Daily Wager, and (F) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honorable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The brief facts of the case are as under :

4.1.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the service of the Gujarat Maritime Board as daily wager on 16.06.1987. Thereafter the petitioner was terminated in September, 1990. The petitioner preferred Reference Case being Ref.(LCB) No.233 of 1991 before the Labour Court raising an industrial dispute and vide order dated 22nd March, 2001 the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents.

4.2. According to the petitioner as per the terms of settlement by which the petitioner was reinstated, one of the condition was that the earlier service rendered by the petitioner would be counted for the purpose of pension.

4.3. The petitioner was thereafter given the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on completion of five years of service in the year 2006 and was placed in the pay scale of 3050-4590 with effect from 1st June, 2005.

4.4. The services of the petitioner was thereafter regularized on completion of ten years with effect from 1st June, 2010 vide order dated 28th June, 2010 as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. According to the petitioner order dated 28th June, 2010 provides for granting all the benefits available to regular employee including benefit of pension. It is also the case of the petitioner that while counting the ten years of services, respondent authorities have taken into consideration all the years wherein petitioner had completed service of more than 240 days.

4.5. According to the petitioner the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 provides for superannuation at the age of 60 years. Howe