Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner was working as conductor with the Gujarat State Transport Corporation. His services were terminated, against which he had raised dispute under I.D. Act, which ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court being Reference (LCR) No. 118 of 1998. The Labour Court passed the award on 27.12.2001, whereby the reinstatement was granted without backwages. It is the case of the petitioner that the said award is not challenged before any higher forum. 2. The petitioner thereafter had also preferred an application before the competent authority for gratuity amount being Application No. 39 of 2002 and the competent authority treating the continuous service of the petitioner based on the award of the Labour Court, ultimately has also passed the order for payment of gratuity on 24.2.2003. The matter was also carried before the appellate authority and the appellate authority only modified the order to the extent of withdrawing the increment while calculating the amount of gratuity, but the findings of continuous service of 18 years from 24.11.1979 to 31.1.1998 is not disturbed. 3. The petitioner thereafter applied for fixation of pension vide application dated 4.8.2003. However, the same was not granted by Respondent No. 3 on the ground that the total service was of 866 days and, therefore, the period of 10 years was not completed. Therefore, the pension was not sanctioned. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition. 4. The only question to be considered is the continuity of the service of the petitioner based on the award of the Labour Court and the entitlement for pension by the petitioner upon completion of 10 years’ period. 5. Heard Mr. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit already filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, is taken into consideration. 6. The pertinent aspect is that the existence of the award passed by the Labour Court and the reliance placed by the petitioner is not denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Provident Fund Authority and the statement is also made that the petitioner was having provident fund account. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been advised to deposit Rs. 5,024/- and such contribution is required to be made by the concerned member for the subscription of pension scheme. Mr. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been advised to deposit Rs. 5,024/- and such contribution is required to be made by the concerned member for the subscription of pension scheme. Mr. Paul, during the course of the hearing, has placed on record a copy of the challan showing that the amount of Rs. 5,024/- has been deposited by the petitioner. 7. Under these circumstances, if the award of the Labour Court is taken into considered, it can be said that the petitioner has completed the requisite period of ten years’ service. Further the objection raised on behalf of the Provident Fund Authority is also complied with for payment of Rs. 5,024/-. Therefore, as a consequence thereof, there is no impediment shown to this Court for claiming the benefit of the pension by the petitioner. 8. Hence, the Respondents No. 1 and 3 are directed to forward a fresh proposal to Respondent No. 3 in light of the observations made by this Court in the present judgement seeking sanction of the pension of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. The Respondent No. 3 is further directed to consider the proposal of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and pass appropriate orders in light of the judgement of this Court for sanctioning the pension in according with law, within a period of two months thereafter. 9. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.