JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant (since deceased), now through his legal heirs on record, has prayed for the following reliefs; "(A) Directing the respondents to fix and pay pension to the petitioner on the basis of award of the Labour Court, and to pay the resultant amount with 12% interest. (B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, Respondents may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.20000/- to the petitioner on adhoc basis. (C) To grant such other relief as may be deemed fit." 2. The writ applicant was working as a daily wager between 1976 and 1985. Thereafter, he was appointed as a work charged employee. He worked as a work-charged employee upto 30th June, 1994. He retired on attaining superannuation on 30th June, 1994. 3. It appears that his claim for pension was not being taken into consideration. In such circumstances, he approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court took the view that it had no jurisdiction to consider whether the writ applicant was entitled to received the pension. In such circumstances, he has come up with this writ application. 4. The following facts are not in dispute as reflected from the affidavit-in-reply itself. 4.1 The writ applicant was working under the Respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department. 4.2 He worked as a daily wager between 1976 and 1985. 4.3 He, thereafter, worked as a work-charged employee from 21st January, 1985 to 30th June, 1994 and, ultimately, retired on 30th June, 1994. 5. In the affidavit-in-reply, the following has been stated; "7. I say and submit that the service has been rendered by the present petitioner as a daily wager cannot be counted for the pensionary benefits. As daily wagers is paid from the contingency fund his service cannot be counted for the pensionable service. The present petitioner was working a a work charge employee from 21.01.1985 to 30.06.1994. This service cannot be counted for the pensionary benefits. As per this the present petitioner had worked as a work charge employee for 9 years 5 months and 9 days. He did not complete 10 years service and he is not entitled for pensionary benefits, as he did not complete 10 years pensionable service. 8. This service cannot be counted for the pensionary benefits. As per this the present petitioner had worked as a work charge employee for 9 years 5 months and 9 days. He did not complete 10 years service and he is not entitled for pensionary benefits, as he did not complete 10 years pensionable service. 8. I say and submit that the as per Rule 233 of BCSR, Government servants who are paid from the contingency fund and the services which have been rendered by these Government employees cannot be counted for the pensional be service. The Rule 233 is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Rule 233: [1] Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but whose whole time is retained for the public service. [2] Government servants who are not in receipt of pay but are remunerated. [I] honoraria, or, [ii] the grant of a tenure of land of any other source of revenue or of a right to collect money. [3] Government Servants who are paid from contingencies; [4] Government servants holding posts, which have been declared by the authority, which created them to be non pensionable. [5] Holders of all tenure posts in the Medical Department, whether private practise is allowed to them or not when they do not have an active or suspended lien on any other permanent posts under Government. 9. I say and submit that 10 years of the service was required for pensionable benefits. The gratuity and other benefits have already been paid. Hence, the present petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits and therefore the petition of the petitioner is required to be rejected. I submit that in Special Civil Application No.12167/94 this Hon'ble Court held that if service period is less than 10 years the employees is not entitled for pension. Copy of the judgment of Special Civil Application No.12167/94 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R to this reply. 6. Ms. Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submitted that the issue is squarely covered, not only by the judgments of this Court, but even by the Government Resolutions of the State Government. Ms. Pandya has invited my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of the State of Gujarat & Anr. Ms. Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submitted that the issue is squarely covered, not only by the judgments of this Court, but even by the Government Resolutions of the State Government. Ms. Pandya has invited my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of the State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., 2011 (2) GLR 1290 , wherein the Court pronounced as under; "1.1 There is no controversy about the fact that all the petitioners, who entered service as daily rated employees, have by now been regularised in their service under the aforesaid Government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and most of the benefits under the Government resolution, available to regular Government servants, were extended to the original petitioners. The petitions were, however, resisted on the ground that original petitioners were daily rated employees and the benefits accorded to the permanent employees of the Government could not be extended to them. Learned Single Judge, after adverting to the background of resolution dated 1.10.1988 and 17.10.1988, has opined that the workman concerned enlisted in Annexure-A to each petition were regular permanent employees of the respondent and were entitled to all the benefits as permanent employees of the appellants herein. Therefore, allowing the petitions, it is directed that all the workmen concerned be treated as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and that they shall be granted all the benefits as such. 2. Learned AGP reiterated the argument that even as workmen concerned were entitled to, and were in fact granted most of the benefits at par with regular employees of the State, in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, some of the benefits such as encashment of leave, leave travel assistance, travelling allowance, uniform allowance etc. were denied to them on the basis that they were not full-fledged duly recruited Government servants. Learned AGP relied upon subsequent Government resolution dated 18.7.1994, whereby it was sought to be clarified that the word 'permanent' in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was meant to convey job security but it was not meant to be understood to make daily rated employees regular employees on the set up and establishment of respective departments. It was fairly conceded that entitlement of the employees concerned was wholly dependent upon reading and interpretation of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. 3. It was fairly conceded that entitlement of the employees concerned was wholly dependent upon reading and interpretation of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. 3. According to G.R. dated 17.10.1988, a committee under the Chairmanship of Honourable Minister, Shri Daulatbhai Parmar, was constituted to consider conditions of service of daily rated labourers and artisans employed in several departments of the State Government. That committee had submitted its report and it was resolved to accept recommendations of the committee and provide several benefits to the workmen concerned with effect from 1.10.1988. Those benefits included payment of minimum wages, paid weekly holidays, medical facility and national holidays. After completion of five years of continuous service in terms of provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such daily rated employees were to be entitled to fixed monthly salary of Rs.750/- with dearness allowance prevalent from time to time and few more benefits of paid holidays and leave wages as well as membership of provident fund. It is stipulated in Clause-3 of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 that daily rated employees, who had completed, as on 1.10.1988, continuous service of ten years in terms of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be treated as permanent and such permanent employees shall be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.750-940/- and shall also be paid dearness allowance and house rent allowance accordingly. They would also be entitled to pension, gratuity and benefits of provident fund in accordance with prevalent rules. The age of superannuation for such permanent labourer is fixed at 60 years and the period of permanent service is to be counted as pensionable service. It is further stipulated that the employees, who had completed 15 years of service as on 1.10.1988, shall be placed in the pay scale as aforesaid and their age for retirement shall be 60 years. Such workers, who would have completed 15 years of service on 1.10.1988, were to be entitled to one increment, and the employees, who had completed 25 years of service were to be granted three increments, before fixing their wages in the pay scale on 1.10.1988. 4. Such workers, who would have completed 15 years of service on 1.10.1988, were to be entitled to one increment, and the employees, who had completed 25 years of service were to be granted three increments, before fixing their wages in the pay scale on 1.10.1988. 4. Bare reading of above stipulations contained in the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 makes it crystal clear that upon completion of ten years of service, in terms of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on or before 1.10.1988, daily rated employees to whom the G.R. applied were to be treated as permanent employees with concomitant benefits. It is further clarified and resolved in clause (10) of subsequent resolution dated 18.7.1994 that the employees, who were completing 5/10/15 years of continuous service due to which whose categories would change should be immediately accorded benefits of the category in which such employees would fall. Government Resolution dated 18.7.1994 is, according to its own preamble, meant to supersede earlier instructions issued vide Government resolution dated 3.11.1990. The instructions are primarily meant to regulate treatment of daily rated employees, who had completed one or more years of service on 1.10.1988, with the stipulation that such employees shall continue to be treated as daily rated employees. Detailed instructions have been issued in said Government resolution for categorizing such daily rated employees and maintaining their seniority lists, as also for regulating their pension and termination of their service by way of retrenchment. At the end, in Clause 15 of the Government resolution, it is stipulated that the word 'permanent' as used in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is intended to provide protection of service but not for treating such employees on regular establishment of the government. 5. As noted earlier, subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 is expressly superseding the instructions contained in Government resolution dated 3.11.1990 but does not supersede original G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Under such circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Under such circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order. However, no ground or rational basis could be made out for grant of most of the benefits to most of the employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and for denial of the remaining few benefits. Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently rebranded as "daily wager" (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent Government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best "permanent daily wage employees", is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment except for the clarification made hereunder. 6. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment except for the clarification made hereunder. 6. Letters Patent Appeal Nos.960, 961, 964 and 965 of 2001 are preferred from common oral judgment dated 6.4.2000 of learned Single Judge of this Court, inter alia, in Special Civil Application Nos.28, 64, 67 and 68 of 1988 whereby original petitioners, working under the appellants herein, were directed to be given benefits in following terms: ".................In terms of the order passed in earlier case on 23/10/1999, the respondents are directed to extend all the benefits of regular employees to the petitioner, who have been made permanent employees in regular scale of pay for more than 10 years of service. They should not be discriminated with other employees. With the aforesaid observations and direction all the petitions are allowed and accordingly disposed of..............." 7. Apparently the aforesaid resolution dated 18.7.1994 was not pressed into service when the impugned judgment dated 6.4.2000 was delivered. It is observed by learned Single Judge as under: ".......It appears that the Government Resolution is very clear that these petitioners who have completed more than 10 years as daily workers will be treated as permanent employees and they will get regular scale of pay. When these employees are treated as permanent employees with regular scale of pay, I do not find any reasons that they will be deprived of the benefits given to other Government employees of same category. There cannot be any confusion about the Government Resolution and it is obligatory on the part of the Government to extend all the benefits to these petitioners, who have been regularised on regular posts with regular scale of pay..................." 8. Letters Patent Appeal No.962 of 2001 is preferred from oral judgment dated 23.10.1999 of learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.5757 of 1988. In that impugned judgment also, the petition was allowed with the direction to treat all the workmen concerned as permanent employees and to treat them at par with other employees and to grant all the benefits as such. Thus, common issue of interpretation and application of relevant clause of Government resolution dated 17.10.1988 is involved in all the appeals and it is decided as aforesaid against the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of each case." 7. Ms. Thus, common issue of interpretation and application of relevant clause of Government resolution dated 17.10.1988 is involved in all the appeals and it is decided as aforesaid against the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of each case." 7. Ms. Pandya has also invited my attention to the Government Resolution dated 30th May, 1989 as well as the Government Resolution dated 24th March, 2006. Both the Government Resolutions would indicate that the State Government has taken a policy decision to consider the period of service put in by an employee as a daily wager while clubbing the same with the period of service as a work-charged employee. 8. Mr. Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) is pending before the Supreme Court. According to him, a learned Single Judge of this Court delivered a judgment, placing reliance on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and the said judgment of the learned Single Judge is a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. 9. Be that as it may, the stance of the Deputy Executive Engineer, as reflected from the affidavit-in-reply, is that since the writ applicant had not put in 10 years of the qualifying service for the pensionary benefits, he was not entitled to draw the pension. The stance is suggestive of the fact that the Government is not inclined to count the period of the service between 1976 and 1985 as a daily wager. 10. This writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Director, Pension and Provident Fund as well as the respondent No.4, State of Gujarat, Roads & Buildings Department, to take into consideration the Government Resolutions dated 30th May, 1989 and 24th March, 2006, and pass appropriate orders in that regard in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. The order shall be in writing, containing reasons, and the same shall be communicated to the legal heirs of the writ applicant on record. 11. With the above, this writ application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 12. Direct service is permitted.