Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—All the appeals are admitted. Learned Counsel appearing for original petitioner Mrs. Krishna Raval has waived notice of admission and Mr. N.J. Shah, learned AGP has appeared for the District Collector and Local Fund Examiner – State authorities. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the sides for final disposal of the appeals. 2. As in all the matters, common question arise for consideration, they are being considered by common judgment. 3. All the appeals arise against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the respective Special Civil Applications, whereby the learned single Judge has directed the authorities to finalize the amount payable by way of pension on the premise that the original petitioner - concerned employee in the petitions were entitled to get the pension. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per the status in the original petition hereinafter. 4. The relevant facts are that the concerned employees were initially working as daily wager with the concerned panchayat prior to the conversion of panchayat into municipality, namely, Una Nagarpalika. It appears that the panchayat was converted into the municipality and the concerned employees were also continued as daily wagers on the said post. Since they were not granted permanency benefits nor were absorbed in the permanent set-up, dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal being Reference (ITR) No. 349 of 1987 and others, and in the said reference, the Tribunal passed the award dated 12.2.1997 whereby the concerned employees were directed to be made permanent w.e.f. 1.1.1989 and the difference of pay and allowance were ordered to be paid w.e.f. 1.1.1990 onwards. That award is not upset by the higher forum. Since there was no challenge and, accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.1989, all the concerned employees were absorbed in the permanent set-up of the municipality and they were granted benefits of the permanent employees. It appears that the employees concerned were treated in the scheme of GPF and the deduction from their salary was also being made by the municipality for crediting amount in the respective GPF account of the concerned employees. All the concerned employees reached the age of superannuation and they have retired from service, save and except for employees concerned in Special Civil Applications No. 30660 of 2007 and 9270 of 2010 as they have expired prior to the reaching to the age of superannuation. All the concerned employees reached the age of superannuation and they have retired from service, save and except for employees concerned in Special Civil Applications No. 30660 of 2007 and 9270 of 2010 as they have expired prior to the reaching to the age of superannuation. The petitioners concerned claimed for pension and family pension on the basis of the service completed by them. In respect of employees concerned in Special Civil Application Nos.2048 of 2008 and 2143 of 2008, the pension has been sanctioned by the competent authorities, but not on the post upon which they ended their service, but on the post which they were holding during the period when they were with the concerned panchayat, namely, the cleaners though said employees retired as drivers. It is on account of the non-payment of pension on the post at which they retired, all the petitions were preferred. The learned single Judge vide impugned order, ultimately found that all the concerned employees were covered by the policy of the Government to treat the petitioners eligible for grant of pension. Under the circumstance, all the appeals before us have been preferred by the municipality with whom the concerned employees were in service. 5. We have heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned sr. counsel appearing with Mr. Devnani, Learned Advocate for the appellant, Mrs. Krishna Rawal for Respondent No. 1 – original petitioner in all the matters and Mr. N.J. Shah, learned AGP for the State authorities. 6. It is undisputed position that all the concerned employees were treated in the GPF scheme, therefore, respective GPF accounts were opened and the deduction was also made from their salary from the date on which they were made permanent and until they retired from service or their service ended on account of their death. It is also undisputed position that all such employees were not treated in CPF scheme, which is applicable to other municipal employees and no deduction for the purpose of CPF has been made by the municipality from the salary of concerned employees. It is also undisputed position that all such employees were not treated in CPF scheme, which is applicable to other municipal employees and no deduction for the purpose of CPF has been made by the municipality from the salary of concerned employees. If the employee, when he is absorbed in service, is treated for all purposes in the GPF scheme for pensional benefits and not treated in the CPF scheme for lumpsum amount, and the said position continued until the person concerned reached to the age of superannuation or otherwise, would it be open to the employer or the concerned authorities to deny the pensionary benefits after retirement on the ground that the employees concerned was not eligible for pension as per the GPF scheme. In our view, if such is permitted to be entertained and accepted, it would not only be highly improper on the part of the authority, but can also be termed as atrocious action, which would be absurd on the face of it. 7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant, however contended that the employees concerned, who were in the then panchayat service and subsequently continued in the municipality, were not recruited by the regular selection process and it was submitted that it is only w.e.f. 1.1.1989 they have been granted permanency benefit. When on 1.1.1989 permanency benefits were granted, they were taken as municipal employees and not as employees of the panchayat. Under the circumstances, they would be entitled for all benefits, which may be available to other municipal employees. It was submitted that as per the decision of this Court in case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat vs. Ramniklal Dharshi Shah reported at (2010) 1 GCD 675 , such employees who were not recruited by the regular selection process of the then Gram Panchayat, could not be termed as in panchayat service and, therefore, would not be eligible for the pensional benefits as available to other employees of the panchayat or Government service. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that if the employees were of the municipality, there is no scheme of the Government for pensional benefits, but the scheme applicable would be CPF to the employees of the municipality. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that if the employees were of the municipality, there is no scheme of the Government for pensional benefits, but the scheme applicable would be CPF to the employees of the municipality. It was submitted that the learned single Judge was guided by the resolution of the Government, which in the submission of the municipality is not applicable and, therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous. 8. There cannot be any different view in respect of the employees taken by this Court in Chorwad Gramp Panchayat (Supra). However, the point which arise for consideration in the present group of matters did not arise in the said case inasmuch as if for all purposes the employees concerned were treated as in panchayat service with the scheme of the Government for pension by deduction of GPF, would it be open to the Government or the municipality to deny the pensional benefits, if the employees concerned have retired from service. It is true that if one was not appointed by regular recruitment process, he may not fall in the panchayat service. In our view, the factum of giving treatment by the municipality and Government to all the concerned employees in the present case as member of the panchayat service and the consequent action of regular deduction of contribution of GPF account that too from the inception of the service as the permanent employees until reaching to the age of superannuation or until the services came to an end, would be sufficient to decline the entertainment of such plea taken by municipality and/or the Government as the case may be, that the employees concerned in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat (Supra), would not be entitled for the pensional benefits. Be it noted that it is not the case of the appellant or any of the State authority that it is on account of any fraud or misrepresentation or any mischief played by the concerned employees at the relevant point of time or even thereafter they were treated as member of GPF scheme. Therefore, the question is to be examined in light of the bonafide action on the part of employee as well as the concerned officer of the employer or the Government, as the case may be. Therefore, the question is to be examined in light of the bonafide action on the part of employee as well as the concerned officer of the employer or the Government, as the case may be. It is true that in normal circumstance, such estoppel may not operate against any statute, but it is not a mere case of considering the question of estoppel. In our view, a case of conduct of the party concerned coupled with the alteration of the position of the party concerned throughout. At any point of time, neither the municipality or the Government has refunded the amount of contribution nor they have intimated to the employees concerned for their mistake or otherwise. After completion of the service, if such a plea is entertained or is accepted, in our view, it would result into allowing the atrocious treatment to be played by the municipality or the Government or its officers, which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily wager or a temporary employee of the Government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. On the contrary as per the policy of the Government, even if a person is an ad hoc/temporary employee, after completion of requisite length of service, he is to be treated as eligible for the scheme of pension and once he is treated as eligible for the scheme of pension, and his contribution are being deducted from his salary, he would be eligible for the pension upon completion of the requisite length of service. Therefore, there is no absolute bar operating upon the entitlement of the pension by the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, who are treated as for all purposes covered by the scheme of pension for the contribution from their salary and same position continued until they reached to the age of superannuation or until the end of their service. 10. The learned single Judge additionally has relied upon the Government Resolution which inter-alia provides for pensional benefits of the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, which has been converted into municipality and they are absorbed in the municipality. 11. 10. The learned single Judge additionally has relied upon the Government Resolution which inter-alia provides for pensional benefits of the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, which has been converted into municipality and they are absorbed in the municipality. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned single Judge of treating the concerned employees as eligible for pension appears to be correct and consequently the direction issued for disbursement of the pension/family pension does not deserve to be interfered with. 12. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the original petitioners that in respect of two petitions, Special Civil Application No. 2048 of 2008 and 2143 of 2008, while fixing the pension, the difference of the salary is also recovered and she submitted that the same may be directed to be paid. In our view once the pension is to be fixed on the basis of their pay-scale prevailing at the time of their retirement, consequently while disbursement of the said amount, the pension already paid would be required to be adjusted and the remaining amount will be required to be paid. Therefore, if any amount has been unauthorizedly retained or withheld falling part of the pension, the same naturally will have to be disbursed simultaneously. 13. Mr. Patel, learned sr. counsel for the appellant lastly contended that as the time granted by the learned single Judge has expired to forward the papers of the pension, some additional time may be granted. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, the pension papers in respect of the employees concerned will be forwarded within period of four weeks from today and, thereafter, the concerned authority shall examine and sanction the same in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter, and the actual disbursement shall be made of the requisite amount to the concerned persons within four weeks therefrom. 14. Hence, subject to the aforesaid observation and the directions, all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost. P P P P P