Judgment Sonia Gokani, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Niraj Ashar, waives service of rule for and on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. With the consent of learned advocates for both the sides, matter is taken up for final hearing today. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred in following capsulized facts. 2. The petitioner initially worked with respondent university as daily rated employee from the year 1989 to 2000. Thereafter, various employees of the university skilled, semi skilled and unskilled had approached the Industrial Court through reference under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal directed the respondent State to regularize the services of daily rated labourers who completed 10 years of service with minimum 240 days as on 1.1.1993 with pay and other allowance and with other benefits. 3. The university was aggrieved by such intervention by Industrial Court, and therefore, had approached by way of writ petition challenging the award of the Industrial Court. Learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition and set aside the award with, of course, the direction to make payment to the workmen at the minimum pay-scale as also to frame scheme for regularization of such daily rated labourers. 4. Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by those working as carpenter, masons and plumbers etc. The Letters Patent Bench dismissed all the three appeals summarily. It reiterated the requirement of framing the scheme with regard to extension of permanent status to the workmen in question within one month from the date of receipt of the order and making the award within three months after inviting the objections and suggestions from the respective parties. 5. The appellant university, aggrieved by such directions, approached the Apex Court. The appellant university since was successfully funded by the State Government, a scheme was framed by the University for the absorption of employees with the approval of the State Government which had been presented before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, after hearing at length the objections of the respondent employees and others with respect to the proposed scheme for regularization of daily rated workers, gave its verdict approving the scheme framed by the university and as approved by the State Government subject to the modifications, which had been recorded. The Apex Court, after hearing at length the objections of the respondent employees and others with respect to the proposed scheme for regularization of daily rated workers, gave its verdict approving the scheme framed by the university and as approved by the State Government subject to the modifications, which had been recorded. The Apex Court also further directed that as the workmen had suffered for a long duration, it would be appropriate that the said scheme is implemented expeditiously at an early date. The first phase of absorption was to be completed within three months. 6. The proposal was sent to the State Government for sanctioning 890 posts. After the sanction appointment started on such posts. With effect from 1.4.2002, petitioner was appointed on such sanctioned post pursuant to the said schemes and continued to work till the age of superannuation which was 30.11.2011. 7. She made representations on 2.5.2012 and 6.8.2012 for grant of pensionary benefits. As no heed was paid to either of it, she has approached this Court. According to the petitioner, she has been denied pension on the ground that her qualifying service of 10 years is not completed. She lacks about 3 to 4 months' period. This petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs: "14. The petitioner, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, most respectfully prays that: (A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or a writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to release pension of the petitioner forthwith alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. by quashing and setting aside letter dated 9-1-2013 and be further pleased to hold the action of the respondent university in not granting pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground of non-completion of 10 years service as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. (C) Pending hearing, Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or a writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, subject to the outcome of present petition and subject to filing the petitioner undertaking before this Hon'ble Court that if she fails in present petition, she will repay the whole amount. (D) Any other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice." 8. On issuance of notice on 21.6.2013 respondent No. 2 filed affidavit-in-reply emphasizing that the petitioner has not put in qualifying service of 10 years to get the benefit of pension. It is the say of respondent No. 2 that university is 100% grant-in-aid institution and it is having its own pension rules. As per pension Rule 13.1, the petitioner is required to complete qualifying service of 10 years. The main thrust of argument is that if anyone retires without completing qualifying service of less than 10 years, he or she is not entitled to any amount of pension. It is urged that the daily wagers do not hold any post. The benefit of regularization was granted with effect from 1.4.2002 under the scheme, and therefore, she is not entitled to get pensionary benefits as claimed by her. Affidavit-in-rejoinder is also filed. It is her say that not only the petitioner had completed 10 years or more continuous service, but had she been regularized well in time, as was directed by the Apex Court, there would not have arisen any question of her not getting the benefit of pension. It is her say that she should be accorded permanency with effect from 1.1.2001. 9. Learned advocates appearing for both the sides have been heard at length. 10. It is the say of learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the respondent University that there shall be a need for conjoint reading of the administrative orders dated August, 2001 and 16.12.2002. It can be specifically stated that the posts were sanctioned by the Government from 1.4.2002, and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was made with effect from 1.4.2002. However, she was given the benefit of pay from 1.1.2001 pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others, 2001 (1) G.L.H. 465 : 2001-I-LLJ-710. It is the say of learned advocate Mr. However, she was given the benefit of pay from 1.1.2001 pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others, 2001 (1) G.L.H. 465 : 2001-I-LLJ-710. It is the say of learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of her service as provided in Rule 13.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural University Employees Pension Rules, the employee retiring without completing qualifying service of less than 10 years on superannuation shall not be entitled to any pension. It is his say, therefore, that person when was appointed on 1.4.2002, her 10 years has not been completed on 30.11.2011 on her superannuation. 11. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner employee continued to work as daily rated employee upto 2001. It is by virtue of the Supreme Court's directions that all daily rated employees have been regularized. It is very clear that the petitioner was required to be placed in the fixed scale after his regularization. He, however, has urged that it was to be made effective from 1.1.2001 but for want of timely grant of sanctioned posts, the shortfall of four months has arisen in completing 10 years' of service and therefore in turn in his getting the pension. It is further his say that it was the administrative delay in making the request for getting the sanctioned post from the Government for nearly six months after the decision of the Supreme Court which had created a hurdle in the path of the petitioner in her getting the appointment on the sanctioned post at earlier date and consequently, the resistance of respondent in treating her qualifying pensionable service. 12. Upon thus hearing both the sides and on considering the material on record, firstly, it is to be noted that the scheme which has been formulated by the respondent-authority is pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court. It must be kept in mind that the entire scheme, proposed was scrutinized threadbare. It was also noticed that the proposed scheme required completion of 10 years' prior to 31.12.1999 for regularization dehors the interest of workers especially of those, who worked from 1973 onwards. Some of the workers were found to be working from 1973 onwards, and therefore, this cut off date for regularization granted by the Apex Court needed a relook. It was also noticed that the proposed scheme required completion of 10 years' prior to 31.12.1999 for regularization dehors the interest of workers especially of those, who worked from 1973 onwards. Some of the workers were found to be working from 1973 onwards, and therefore, this cut off date for regularization granted by the Apex Court needed a relook. It would be relevant to note that before the Apex Court, it was the stand of the University that there was no post for absorption of such workers. The Court held that non-creation of the post itself constitutes unfair labour practice. When the University has taken work from its workers, year after year for more than one decade, the Apex Court also noticed that both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had found existence of permanent nature of work requiring the labourers to be regularized. Relevant would be to reproduce the relevant discussions on the proposed scheme and the findings and observations of the Apex Court rendered in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others (supra) as under: "16. Respondents objection to Item No. 1 of the proposed aforesaid scheme which requires completion of 10 years prior to 31st December, 1999 for regularization is that it is dehors the interest of the workers, specially when some of the workers are working from 1973 onwards. Thus this cut off date for regularization requires a re-look. With reference to Item No. 1(a), the objection is, that the University had failed to produce any evidence to show any qualification for the posts on which they are to be absorbed. The recruitment rules which have been placed for the first time before this Court do lay down some qualifications but their experience of working for such a long time itself should be sufficient for their eligibility. With reference to Item (1)(b) and 1(d) the objection is, there should not be any phased regularization, when work has been taken for such a long time. All such qualified workers should be regularized from the date they completed 10 years of their continuous service. With reference to Item No. 1(c) the submission is, there is no case whatsoever about any unsatisfactory work of any of these respondent workmen nor any proceedings are pending against them. In other words, there is no serious objection to it. All such qualified workers should be regularized from the date they completed 10 years of their continuous service. With reference to Item No. 1(c) the submission is, there is no case whatsoever about any unsatisfactory work of any of these respondent workmen nor any proceedings are pending against them. In other words, there is no serious objection to it. Next, with reference to Item No. 2 which provides, all daily workers who have completed 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31st December, 1999 but could not be regularized, w.e.f. 1st January, 2000 they would be entitled for a fixed pay without allowance as prescribed by the Government from time to time for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers plus Rs. 500/- p.m. They would also be entitled to annual increment of Rs. 15/-, Rs. 20/- and Rs. 25/- respectively for the unskilled, semiskilled and skilled workers till their services are regularized. The objection is instead these workers should be paid minimum pay scale (without increment) as admissible to regularized workman on such post from 1st January, 1993. Similarly, Item No. 3 refers to such daily wagers, skilled, semiskilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year to be paid minimum wages at the rates as prescribed by the Government of Gujarat from time to time for daily wagers falling in Class III and Class IV. The objection is the same that they should also be paid minimum pay scale. No serious submission with reference to Item No. 4 has been made. 17. From the aforesaid, it emerges that the learned Single Judge had concurred with the finding of the Tribunal that contesting workmen have been working in the appellant University regularly for a long number of years. The existence of permanent nature of work was inferred on this account and also due to the vastness of appellant establishment. The regularization is claimed only in respect of Class IV employees. The main objection, which was raised earlier and is raised before us is that a person could only be regularized on any vacant post and if there be one he should be qualified for the same as per qualification, if any, prescribed. The regularization is claimed only in respect of Class IV employees. The main objection, which was raised earlier and is raised before us is that a person could only be regularized on any vacant post and if there be one he should be qualified for the same as per qualification, if any, prescribed. In fact, the Tribunal has held on the date of the award, most of the workmen had completed 10 years of their service. It is also well settled, if work is taken by the employer continuously from daily wage workers for a long number of years without considering their regularization for its financially gain as against employees legitimately claim, has been held by this Court repeatedly as an unfair labour practice. In fact, taking work, from daily wage worker or ad hoc appointee is always viewed to be only for a short period or as a stop gap arrangement, but we find new culture is growing to continue with it for a long time, either for financial gain or for controlling its workers more effectively with sword of damocles hanging over their heads or to continue with favoured one in the cases of ad hoc employee with staling competent and legitimate claimants. Thus we have no hesitation to denounce this practice. If the work is of such a nature, which has to be taken continuously and in any case when this pattern become apparent, when they continue to work for year after year, only option to the employer is to regularize them. Financial viability no doubt is one of the considerations but then such enterprise or institution should not spread its arms longer than its means. The consequent corollary is, where work is taken not for a short period or limited for a season or where work is not of part time nature and if pattern shows work is to be taken continuously year after year, there is no justification to keep such persons hanging as daily rate workers. In such situation a legal obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules if any and where necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long experience could be equitable with such qualifications. If no post exists then duty is cast to assess the quantum of such work and create such equivalent post for their absorption. If no post exists then duty is cast to assess the quantum of such work and create such equivalent post for their absorption. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 35. In the present case after absorption of employees under Clause 1, we have already directed, the State Government what they have to do in coordination with the appellant University to assess and find additional regular posts required by the university. In doing so, they shall keep in mind the continuous work which the workers are doing for long number of years and after fixing the number it should further create such additional posts as necessary and absorb them. This exercise to be undertaken, as aforesaid, within six months. So for this reason we would not like to disturb the proposed scheme except to the extent we have observed above. We are sure no slackness would be exercised both by the appellant and the State in completing this exercise within the said period. Apart from what we have observed, we do not find any infirmity in the scheme. 36. Accordingly we approve the aforesaid scheme framed by the University and as approved by the State Government, subject to the modifications which we have recorded above. In terms of the said modified scheme, the judgment of the High Court stands modified. As respondents/workmen have suffered for a long duration of time it is appropriate that aforesaid scheme is implemented expeditiously at an early date. The first phase of absorption to be completed within three months. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Costs on the parties." 13. Admittedly, pursuant to these directions of the Apex Court, the scheme framed by the University, as was approved by the State Government, got the seal of approval of the Apex Court with certain modifications. The Apex Court while disposing of these appeals had directed in no uncertain terms that "particularly that the workmen since had suffered for a long duration of time, it is appropriate that the said scheme is implemented expeditiously, and the first phase of absorption to be completed within three months". For the purpose of grant of allowance as prescribed by the Government from time to time for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers, there was an annual increment prescribed till their services were regularized. The office order was made on 3.8.2000. For the purpose of grant of allowance as prescribed by the Government from time to time for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers, there was an annual increment prescribed till their services were regularized. The office order was made on 3.8.2000. It does mention that as and when posts fall vacant or when new posts are sanctioned, the daily wagers shall have to be absorbed on such post from 1.1.2001. 14. As mentioned hereinabove, the changes were also made in their daily wages. They also had been given the fixed pay without allowance plus Rs. 500/- per month. After this, on 1.1.2003 by office order, appointment of the petitioner had been made with effect from 1.4.2002 on the permanent post which had been sanctioned, in all 890 in numbers. It is specified therein that on account of such appointment, the statutory rules and regulations of the University shall be made applicable to the concerned employee. The short question, therefore, would be that when Rule 13.1 of the Gujarat University Employees Pension Rules prescribe the qualifying service of an employee to be 10 years, whether the petitioner would be entitled to any amount of pension. It is contended by the learned counsel Mr. Chauhan appearing for the University that the Court should not interfere as far as the provisions of the statute are concerned. It is his say that the Court should not issue directions contrary to law directing the authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar and Another v. Arvind Kumar and Another, (2012) 12 SCC 395 : LNIND 2012 SC 436. Reference is also made in the said decision of the case of Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 1099 : (2010) 4 SCC 393 : LNIND 2010 SC 147 : (2010) 3 MLJ 593 where the Apex Court has held that, "Generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not pass the order or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law." 15. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not pass the order or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law." 15. It is the matter of record that as was agreed to by the respondent-University, the daily wagers, who had completed 10 years' of continuous service with minimum of 240 days' in each calender year as on 31.12.1999, but were not regularized were given, with effect from 1.1.2000 fixed pay salary without allowance as prescribed by the Government from time to time for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers plus Rs. 500/- per month. They were also given annual increment of Rs. 15, 20 and 25 respectively in these categories of the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers till their services were regularized. On 3.8.2001, the service of the petitioner was regularized on availability of the sanctioned post. In all, as mentioned hereinabove, 890 posts were sanctioned and the appointment was given with effect from 1.4.2002. This also makes it very clear that all rules and regulations and statutory provisions applicable to the employees of the University would be applicable in case of those regularized. This order was made on 1.1.2002 and the arrears from 1.4.2002 to February, 2003 also were paid to the petitioner from March, 2003 and employees were paid the regularized pay-scale on regular basis. Thus, it can be noticed that petitioner Shardaben Parmar, who was earlier a daily wager was given the benefit of fixed salary as per the formula decided and approved by the Apex Court. All benefits of the services were made available to her per the letter dated 8.11.2001 and in regular pay-scale the appointment was made with effect from 1.4.2002. 16. Admittedly, the pension rules meant for Gujarat Agricultural University employees mandates qualifying service of 10 years' on superannuation. Those who do not complete this, are not entitled to any pension under these rules; in ordinary course. This Court can shut out the petitioner straight as she does not complete the qualifying service of 10 years, as per the rules, as rightly pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan. The Apex Court has made it amply clear time and again that the Court is generally not competent to issue directions contrary to law, nor is it to direct anything in contravention of the statutory provisions, since the Courts are meant for enforcing the rule of law. Chauhan. The Apex Court has made it amply clear time and again that the Court is generally not competent to issue directions contrary to law, nor is it to direct anything in contravention of the statutory provisions, since the Courts are meant for enforcing the rule of law. It is not expected to pass any order or directions which are impermissible under the law. Although being conscious of this requirement of 10 years, two aspects which require specific noting is that the scheme, which has been formulated and approved by the Apex Court, was for absorption of those employees who had worked continuously for a very long time and this continuous work for long number of years had initiated creation of additional posts and their absorptions. The Apex Court, at the time of deciding the challenge in the form of SLP in Civil Appeal No. 691 of 2001 on 18.1.2001, directed such exercise to be undertaken within six months. Not only that, the Apex Court had expected that no slackness would be exercised by both the appellant University and the State in completing this exercise within the stipulated period and the Court also further directed that the respondent workmen since have suffered for long duration, it would be appropriate that the scheme be implemented expeditiously at an early date and the first phase of absorption to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment. As can be noted from the order of appointment of the present petitioner, 890 posts had been sanctioned and the appointment has come on 10.4.2002. It is not pointed out that as scheduled by the Apex Court, the first lot was already absorbed in three months, nor is it the case that the petitioner since was lower in terms of seniority, she could be absorbed late. In such circumstances, the respondents surely can take into consideration these glaring aspects while considering her plea of calculating the period of qualifying service with effect from 1.1.2001 instead from 1.4.2002, particularly when the petitioner had worked from the year 1989 with the very Institute and has enjoyed unblemished record till her superannuation from service. 17. The petition stands disposed of with the following direction: The petitioner is permitted to make representation to the respondent-University. 17. The petition stands disposed of with the following direction: The petitioner is permitted to make representation to the respondent-University. Petitioner, if choses, her petition can be treated as representation and keeping in mind the observation made by this Court in this order, such representation shall be decided by the authorities within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Communication of the outcome if aggrieves the petitioner, she may resort to legal recourse available under the law. With above directions, petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. No costs. Disposed off.