Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9527 of 2010, whereby the petition has been dismissed for the entitlement of the pension to the petitioner. 2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGP for the respondents for final disposal. 3. The facts as such are not much in dispute and the only question to be considered in the present matter is whether by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, the appellant would be entitled to continuity in service and consequently to the benefits of the Government Resolution permitting pension to the daily wager, who worked for a period exceeding ten years or not. 4. The relevant facts are that the original petitioner – appellant herein was engaged as daily wager in the year 1981 and thereafter he worked for a long time. It is the case of the appellant that it was continuous work, whereas the respondents contended that the work was not continuous. As per the appellant, his services were illegally terminated without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ), whereas the respondents contended that the appellant had abandoned the service. Ultimately, the dispute came to be raised under the Act, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court in Reference (LCH) No. 532 of 1996 passed the award dated 19.9.2005, whereby the Reference was partly allowed and the reinstatement was ordered with continuity in service to the original post with 10% backwages. It is undisputed position that the said award of the Labour Court has become final and no challenge is made by the respondents at any point of time. Pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the appellant has been reinstated on 28.3.2006. The appellant worked thereafter and he reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2008. As per the appellant, he was entitled for the treatment of his service as continuous and consequently the pension in accordance with law. As no pension was paid to the appellant – original petitioner, nor his service was treated as pensionable, the original petitioner preferred petition before this Court, which ultimately came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal before us. 5. As no pension was paid to the appellant – original petitioner, nor his service was treated as pensionable, the original petitioner preferred petition before this Court, which ultimately came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal before us. 5. It appears to us that when the award of the Labour Court has become final and the respondents have also accepted the award and reinstated the original petitioner, the original petitioner would be entitled to all benefits as accrued upon him pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court provides for reinstatement in service to the original position with continuity in service, meaning thereby the status of the original petitioner would be continued as daily wager and he would be entitled to continuity in service. If the continuity in service is to be considered the period during which his services were terminated and when the award was passed and thereafter the original petitioner was reinstated in service, is to be treated as notional in service for the purpose of extending the benefits of continuity in service. It is undisputed position that the continuity in service to be counted for the total service from the date of joining in 1981 till 2008 would come to about 27 years and more. As contended by the learned AGP, the Government Resolution and the policy does provide that if a person has worked as daily wager for a period exceeding 10 years, then he may be entitled for the status as that an employee entitled for the pension. It was submitted that the period of ten years is to be considered on the basis of actual working of the original petitioner and not notionally as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant. 6. We find that the said contention, if accepted, would run counter to the award passed by the Labour Court. The period during which the case was pending before the Labour Court or the period starting from the date of termination until reinstatement, for all purposes of continuity in service is already ordered by the award of the Labour Court. 6. We find that the said contention, if accepted, would run counter to the award passed by the Labour Court. The period during which the case was pending before the Labour Court or the period starting from the date of termination until reinstatement, for all purposes of continuity in service is already ordered by the award of the Labour Court. Had the respondents been aggrieved by the continuity granted in service as per the award of the Labour Court, nothing prevented the respondents to challenge the said award, but the fact remains that the said award has not been challenged and has rather been accepted and the original petitioner is reinstated in service. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted. 7. The learned AGP has not been able to dispute the proportion that if the daily wager has worked for a period extending ten years after completion of the period of ten years, the service can be counted for the purpose of pension. If such an aspect is considered, the fact remains that, as observed earlier, the length of service of the original petitioner can be considered as of 27 years and more and, therefore, after completion of the period of ten years i.e. from the 11th year of his service, which would be 1992 onwards, the same can be considered for the purpose of computation of pension, in accordance with law, which has not been considered by the respondents. 8. It appears to us that the learned Single Judge was more guided by the status of the original petitioner as that of daily wager without considering the policy of the Government that even if a person is daily wager and has worked for a period exceeding 10 years, the length of service after expiry of period of ten years is to be considered for the purpose of pension. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the service of the original petitioner from 1981 until he reached the age of superannuation is ordered to be treated as continuous as daily wager. If the period of ten years is excluded as daily wager, the remaining period of service would be 17 years and 8 months for the purpose of computation of pension. If the period of ten years is excluded as daily wager, the remaining period of service would be 17 years and 8 months for the purpose of computation of pension. The respondents consequently would be required to compute the pension of the original petitioner after the expiry of the period of ten years of service as daily wager until he reaches the age of superannuation. Such an exercise shall be completed within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court and the pension shall be fixed in accordance with law and the consequential payment shall also be made within one month thereafter. 10. The order the learned Single Judge shall stand set aside. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. P P P P P