JUDGMENT : G.R. UDHWANI, J. 1. The petitioner is Rojamdar since 21/09/1986. The petitioner claims benefit of regularization from the date of joining of the service. However, he was conferred the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 from the date of his regularization on 19/06/1991 on the ground that as per resolution dated 24/03/2006, the date of confirmation i.e. 01/04/1972 would be the date from which the benefit under GR dated 17/10/1988 can be given. The petitioner was denied the benefit for service between 21/09/1986 and 17/06/2005. The petitioner superannuated on 31/05/2006 and his case for pension was recommended on 15/05/2006 and ultimately the impugned decision dated 20/06/2006 was taken. 2. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent controverting the averments made by the petitioner. 3. The issue involved herein is whether the services for the purpose of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 are to be reckoned from the date of joining of the service or from the date of confirmation of the daily wager. This issue no more res intergra in view of decision in SCA No. 13143 of 2004 by this Court by oral judgment dated 02/07/2014 wherein following observations were made: “4. It is not necessary to address the issue in greater detail in view of decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1913 of 2001 on 13.02.2006 wherein also this Court considered almost an identical case and addressed itself on the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 also and directed the concerned respondent to pay the pension to the petitioner there, after taking into consideration his services rendered as daily wagers as well The learned Single Judge in turn relied upon a decision of Division Bench in Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai Rathod v. Deputy Executive Engineer (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1495 of 1997) decided on 6.8.1998 and Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai v. Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, R&B Department, 1998 (2) GLH 1. 5. Since the questions of law have been extensively addressed by this Court in the afore-mentioned petition, it is not necessary to once again consider in detail the said questions of law namely whether the continuous service rendered as daily wager by an employee can be considered and clubbed with the services rendered by him as work charge employee for the purpose of pension? 6. 6. The learned AGP, however, strenuously urged that the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was not available to the petitioner, since before the date of the resolution, he was already absorbed as work charge employee in the year 1986 whereas the resolution was passed on 17.10.1988 7 As indicated hereinabove, in an identical case, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the aforesaid decisions has taken a view aforesaid, and therefore, this argument does not help the learned AGP. The learned AGP, however, relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 wherein a proposition of law that the services rendered as daily wager prior to being borne in cadre, cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the eligibility for promotion. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, it is required to be noted that this Court is not dealing with the case of promotion. As discussed above, for the purpose of pension, various courts have ruled that such services are required to be counted. 9. In above view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to pay the pension to the petitioner taking into consideration his date of appointment in the year 1974.” 4. The coordinate Bench of this Court in SCA NO. 16904 of 2015 decided by on 09/02/2016 has also made following observations on the similar issue: “7. Mr. D.G. Shukla, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a settled position of law that the continuity of service could not have been denied once the services are regularized. He seeks to rely on a decision of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai v. Dy. Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, R&B Department, (1998) 2 GLH 1. He submitted that once a daily rated workman is treated to be permanent under the Resolution dated 17th October 1988, his entire continuous service from the date of entry until he retires including his services rendered prior to the date of his regularization is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing pension or making pension available to such retired employee. 8. Mr. Shukla also placed reliance on one unreported judgment delivered in the case of Rupaben Dahyabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No. 852 of 2003] decided on 12th September, 2012. 9. 8. Mr. Shukla also placed reliance on one unreported judgment delivered in the case of Rupaben Dahyabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No. 852 of 2003] decided on 12th September, 2012. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to draw pension. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been regularized in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Mr. Rindani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made himself clear that whatever benefits extended so far in favour of the petitioner are flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. However, the petitioner is not entitled to draw pension. 11. The Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 confers the following benefits: (i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. (ii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/she will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iv) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly. 12. In the case of Tribhovanbhai (supra), the learned Single Judge took the view observing as under: 4. The short question which concerns the issue before me is whether the petitioner is entitled to pension or not. Primarily, the question of pension in pensionable service has been determined under Section III of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 commencing from Rule 230 onwards. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner being on daily wages, was not holding a pensionable service under Section 230 nor he falls in the exception to the Rule provided thereunder, therefore, the services rendered on daily wages basis prior to his becoming permanent cannot be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 5. It was urged also that the service has been declared as pensionable by the resolution dated 17.10.1988 by the Government, which deems a daily rated workman on completion of ten years service as on 1.10.1988 or thereafter as deemed to be in permanent service and has been made entitled to pension. However, for the purpose of entitlement of pension under resolution the service on regular basis only has to be counted for determining qualifying service and entitled to pension. As the petitioner has not been on permanent basis after he can be deemed to have become permanent as on 1.10.1988, for the qualifying period of ten years he is not entitle to pension. 6. This plea, in my opinion, cannot be sustained being contrary to record and Government's own decision. 7. Rule 230 of Bombay Civil Services Rules says that unless in any case it is otherwise provided by or under the Rules a Government Servant is considered in pensionable service if he holds substantively a permanent post in Government service. 6. This plea, in my opinion, cannot be sustained being contrary to record and Government's own decision. 7. Rule 230 of Bombay Civil Services Rules says that unless in any case it is otherwise provided by or under the Rules a Government Servant is considered in pensionable service if he holds substantively a permanent post in Government service. The argument is that though the petitioner may be treated as permanent under Resolution dated 17.10.1988, he cannot be deemed to holding a permanent post. Without going into this contention it may be noticed that rule itself envisages that a person may be otherwise eligible to pension if so provided by or under the Rules. In this connection, attention has been drawn to Rule 248 of the Rules. 8. Rule 248 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules provide that Government may by general or special order permit service other than pensionable service for performing which a government servant is paid from State revenues or from a local fund to be treated as a duty counting for pension. In issuing such order the Government is to specify the method at which the amount of duty shall be calculated and may impose any condition which it thinks fit. Thus Government has necessary power to provide for pension even in cases where service other than pensionable service may become eligible for grant of pension. 9. In the resolution dated 17.10.1988, it has been envisaged that those workman who as on 1.10.1988 or thereafter completes ten years of continuous service to be counted in accordance with provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be deemed to be permanent and amongst other benefits conferred on being treated as permanent their age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years and they were made entitled for pensionary benefit. By yet another resolution dated 30.5.1989 (Annexure E), in which a specific query was raised at item No (6) with reference to resolution dated 17.10.1988, about the calculation of period of qualifying service for the purpose of entitlement to pension in connection with the pensionary benefits made available to those daily wagers who are deemed to be permanent on completion of ten years of service and it was specifically made clear that within the meaning of resolution dated 17.10.1988, the service which is to be counted is that which can be said as continuous within the meaning of Section 25B with effect from the date of entry in the service is duty counted for the purpose of pension and pension has to be accordingly determined. This does not say that qualifying service is to be counted with effect from date of becoming permanent. This leaves no room of doubt that the resolution dated 17.10.1988 along with clarification issued on the various aspects of it vide resolution dated 30.5.1989 is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 248 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 which provide that Government has not only power by general or special order to permit service other than pensionable service, for performing which a Government servant is paid from State revenues or from a local fund, to be treated as duty counting for pension and in issuing such an order Government is to specify the method by which the amount of duty shall be calculated for the purpose of pension. Once the Government has made it clear that those who have completed ten years of service as daily rated workman are to be deemed permanent with effect from and after 17.10.1988 and are entitled to various benefits on that basis including pension and thereafter has provided by the resolution dated 30.5.1989 that the continuous service for the purposes of pension, made available to employees under resolution dated 17.10.1988, is to be counted with effect from the date of entry in the service provided it can be continuous within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Act, thus making it clear that once a daily rated workman is treated to be permanent under the resolution dated 17.10.1988 his entire continuous service from the date of entry until he retires including his services rendered prior to the date of his regularisation is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing pension or making pension available to such retired employee. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Assuming that Bombay Civil Services Rules do not provide for grant of pension to those, who are not holding a permanent post in the service, then it must be held that daily rated workman working on daily wages, are ex cadre employees and not governed by particular service rules, but are governed by terms of employment under which they have been engaged. This further leads to conclusion that area of employment on daily wages is not covered by statutory rules either promulgated under Act 309 or by other legislature enactment. That is the area left uncovered by specific law, and such employment is in exercise of general executive powers of the State and terms and conditions of such employment is governed by terms of order under which such employment is made and shall be further governed by orders made by State in exercise of its executive power from time to time. The resolution dated 17.10.88 and 30.5.89 shall thus govern the terms of employment of such employees. If considered from this view, the conclusion will be the same. 11. The resolution dated 17.10.88 and 30.5.89 shall thus govern the terms of employment of such employees. If considered from this view, the conclusion will be the same. 11. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that resolution dated 17.10.1988 read with resolution dated 30.5.1989 read with Rule 248, of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits by counting the entire period of service from 1966 to 1994 until the date of his retirement which is to be counted continuous under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act as qualifying service and determining the pension payable to the petitioner who has retired on 31.1.1994, on that basis. 13. Following Tribhovanbhai (supra) in the case of Rupaben (supra), a learned Single Judge took the view observing as under: 5. Heard learned advocates for both the sides. Perused the papers on record. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court. This Court in the case of Tribhovanbhai (supra) has held that once a daily rated permanent under the resolution dated 17.10.1988, his entire continuous service from the date of entry until he retires including his services rendered prior to the date of his regulation is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing pension or making pension available to such retired employee. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his confirmation in service cannot be taken into consideration has no merit inasmuch as the petitioner has also relied upon the same Resolution. In the resolution dated 17.10.1988 it has been envisaged that those workmen who as on 01.10.1988 or thereafter compete ten years of continuous service to be counted in accordance with provisions of Section 25B of the I.D. Act shall be deemed to be permanent and amongst other benefits conferred on being treated as permanent their age of superannuation was fixed at 60 and they were made entitled for pensionary benefits. The same view is reiterated in the case of Karshanbhai (supra) and the unreported decision of this Court. 6. The continuous service for the original petitioner is to be counted from the date of entry in service until he retired including his services rendered prior to the date of his regularisation for the purpose of computing pension. The same view is reiterated in the case of Karshanbhai (supra) and the unreported decision of this Court. 6. The continuous service for the original petitioner is to be counted from the date of entry in service until he retired including his services rendered prior to the date of his regularisation for the purpose of computing pension. Therefore the petitioners are entitled to pensionary benefits and the arrears thereupon. 7. In the case of Baiji Nath Gupta (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the pension was not determined in accordance with the rules on account of any laches or grounds on the part of the appellant, the appellant obviously would not be entitled to payment of interest for the delayed payment of pension and if the Government was responsible for the delay, necessarily the appellant would be entitled to the payment of interest on the delayed payment. similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of (1) Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1212 : (1999) 3 SCC 438 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 742 : (1999) 2 CLR 156 : (1999) 2 SLR 22 : (1999) 1 LLJ 1335 and (2) Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 : 2000 Lab IC 2663 : (2000) 2 LLJ 253 : (2000) 3 LLN 1 : (2000) 2 SLR 686 and (3) Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1526 . Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute the aforesaid proposition. 8. In the premises, petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to compute the pensionary benefits payable to the legal heirs of the original petitioner-workman Shri Dahyabhai Parmar from the date of his retirement till the date of his death i.e. from 31.08.1996 to 21.02.2006 and make payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. 14. Thus, judging the issue in light on the principle of law discussed and explained in the above two decisions, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to draw pension. 14. Thus, judging the issue in light on the principle of law discussed and explained in the above two decisions, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to draw pension. So far as the Government Resolution dated 24th March, 2006 is concerned, the same, in my view, should not come in the way of the petitioner as his right accrued much before the resolution came into force. I am not impressed by the submission canvassed on behalf of the State respondent as regards the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 3.0 in the case of State of Gujarat (supra) referred to above. It is true that the award was modified to a certain extent, but, in my opinion, such modification has no bearing as such with the right of the petitioner to draw pension, more particularly, in view of the two decisions referred to above. In my view, para 3.0 should help the petitioner to a certain extent. In so many words, while modifying the award passed by the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge observed that the authorities shall take into consideration the date of entry as set out by the authority itself in a tabular Statement and extend benefits flowing from the Government Resolution 17th October, 1988. 15. For the foregoing discussion, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The State-respondent authorities are directed to finalize the pension of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and pay the requisite amount with arrears within a period of four weeks thereafter. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.” 5. In view of the above, the petition is required to be allowed and the same is allowed. It is directed that benefit under Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 shall be made available to the petitioner from the date of his joining the services. 6. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.