JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No. 16887 of 2014 is treated as the lead matter. 3. By this writ application, the petitioner, a retired employee of the Irrigation Department of the State Government, has prayed for the following reliefs: "30(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition; (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24-4-2014 at Annexure -A and to pay the arrears and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner with running interest @ 18% per annum; (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant interim pension to the petitioner, during the pendency and final hearing of this petition, and (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any such and further orders as may be deemed just and proper." 4. The facts of this case may be summarized as under: "4.1 The challenge in all these writ applications is to the action of the respondents in not paying the benefits of the pension on the ground that the petitioners did not put in minimum qualifying length of service before attaining the age of superannuation. 4.2 The petitioner was appointed as a Tracer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Gujarat. He was posted in the office of the Deputy Soil Survey Office, North Gujarat Region, Soil Survey Sub-Division at Ahmedabad. 4.3 Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Geo-hydrologist, Groundwater Division No. 1, Paldi, Ahmedabad, and was regularized in service. The petitioner was granted the benefits of the Second Pay Commission. On 8th June, 1978, a resolution was passed, thereby all the activities pertaining to the Tubewell/irrigation which were under the Panchayat/Government were transferred to the Corporation. 4.3 Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Geo-hydrologist, Groundwater Division No. 1, Paldi, Ahmedabad, and was regularized in service. The petitioner was granted the benefits of the Second Pay Commission. On 8th June, 1978, a resolution was passed, thereby all the activities pertaining to the Tubewell/irrigation which were under the Panchayat/Government were transferred to the Corporation. 4.4 On 16th June, 1978, the entire staff including the petitioner came to be transferred and they all started working in the Corporation. 4.5 On 21st October, 1981, a circular was issued whereby all the employees recruited under the different departments and transferred to the Corporation were treated to be the employees of the State Government without any deputation allowance. 4.6 On 14th October 1981, a resolution was issued stating that all the employees were treated as the employees of the State Government and options were invited whether they were wiling to be repatriated to the parent department or to remain with the Corporation. Those employees who did not exercise any option were treated to be the employees of the Corporation. They were treated to be the employees of the parent department upto 14th December, 1981. The petitioner opted to remain with the State Government. 4.7 On 19th December, 1988, he was issued a certificate by the Administrative Officer that he had been in government service from 4th August, 1966 to 13th December, 1981. 4.8 On 31st March, 2004, the petitioner retired on superannuation. 4.9 Although the petitioner was transferred to the Corporation on 16th June, 1978, and having exercised the option in the year 1981, his G.P.F. deductions were credited in the government account till 1983. His C.P.F. was started in the Corporation from 1984-85. 4.10 The petitioner prayed that he be granted pension as he had rendered services for about fifteen years. 4.11 On 2nd April, 2004, the Executive Engineer addressed a communication to the Administrative Officer of the Corporation to prepare the pension papers of the petitioner. 4.12 On 24th April, 2014, the Administrative Officer of the Corporation replied that according to the Government Resolution of 1976, the petitioner was absorbed in the Corporation permanent from 16th June, 1976, and therefore, having not completed the minimum qualifying service of ten years, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of pension. 4.13 Hence, this petition." 5. All these writ applications have been opposed by Mr. 4.13 Hence, this petition." 5. All these writ applications have been opposed by Mr. D.G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the Corporation. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the pension. He submitted that the issue is not covered by the judgment on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He submitted that the facts of each case will have to be considered. 6. I need not adjudicate this issue in details as the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 7th March, 2011 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 5925 of 2001 and also affirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1552 of 2009. An almost identical issue had come before this Court wherein the petitioners were appointed as Tubewell Operators. I may quote the entire judgment of this Court dated 7th March 2011 as under: "2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are summarized as under:-- The petitioners were appointed as Tube Well Operators and were working with respondent No. 1 Panchayat. The details of date of appointment and the period for which they worked with the Panchayat can be summarized in a tabular form as under:-- S. No. Name Name of office Date of appointment Date of transfer Temporary date Date of service put in with (panchayat) (yy-mm-Decided On :) 1 Modi Natvarlal Narottamdas Deodar 21.01.69 16.07.78 19.6.91 09-05-00 2 Soni Nagibhai Vaikuntlal Tarad 19.04.69 … 17.02.72 09-02-28 3 Patel Amratbhai Dhanjibhai Deodar 21.01.69 … 1.8.79 09-05-25 4 Koli Chamanji Jagsiji Tharad 20.04.70 … 17.2.72 08-03-05 5 Chauhan Prabhuji Badarji Tharad 01.01.70 … 17.2.72 08-08-15 6 Modi Kantibhai Shanerbhai Deodar 23.03.69 … 17.2.72 09-04-25 7 Makwana Versinji Devsinji Deodar 01.12.69 … … 08-09-15 The petitioners alongwith other employees working on tubewells came to be transferred en bloc to the newly formed Gujarat Water Resources Department. While in service of the Corporation, pay-scales were revised with effect from 1.1.1973 under the 2nd Desai Pay Commission. The Pay Commission also recommended terminal and pensionary benefits to be granted to all categories of employees who have completed five years of service. The Pension Rules, however, required completion of minimum ten years of qualifying service. While in service of the Corporation, pay-scales were revised with effect from 1.1.1973 under the 2nd Desai Pay Commission. The Pay Commission also recommended terminal and pensionary benefits to be granted to all categories of employees who have completed five years of service. The Pension Rules, however, required completion of minimum ten years of qualifying service. The grievance of the petitioners as raised in the petition is that at the time when they were transferred to the Corporation, they had put in about 9 years and a few months of service falling short of hardly 4 to 5 months for completion of ten years of qualifying service. The petitioners would be entitled to the pensionary benefits only if they have put in minimum ten years of qualifying service. 3. The question involved in this petition appears to be squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge (the then Chief Justice of this Court) dated 11.8.2000 in Special Civil Application No. 6690 of 1989. The question is whether the period of service rendered by the petitioners in the Corporation can be counted towards total period of service for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits from the State in the Panchayat services. This issue was answered in the affirmative by the learned Single Judge while deciding Special Civil Application No. 6690 of 1989. While deciding this issue, the Court observed as under:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two resolutions of the Government dated 10.6.1976 and 14.10.1981. On reading relevant part of the resolution, dated 14.10.1981, learned counsel points out that it was noticed subsequently by the Government that employees whose services were transferred cannot be treated as absorbed in the service of Corporation until they are made to exercise their option for transfer of service. The employees transferred from different departments to the Corporation were, therefore, directed to be given option for absorption in the service of the Corporation. The resolution also directs that so long as employees do not exercise their option, they would be treated to be as on deputation in the service of the Corporation. Reliance is ultimately placed on para 7 of the resolution, dated 14.10.1981 and part of para 9, relevant part whereof reads as under: "9. The resolution also directs that so long as employees do not exercise their option, they would be treated to be as on deputation in the service of the Corporation. Reliance is ultimately placed on para 7 of the resolution, dated 14.10.1981 and part of para 9, relevant part whereof reads as under: "9. All the three categories of officers and employees mentioned above who were working in the erstwhile Directorate on or before 10.6.1976 are only entitled for exercising option and they should, therefore, exercise their option within a period of two months from the date of issue of this G.R. in the prescribed form appended to this G.R. The options received thereafter will not be entertained under any circumstances. The above orders also apply mutatis mutandis to all the employees of the district panchayats who have been transferred en bloc to the Corporation along with the tubewells activities and they should also, therefore, exercise their options likewise subject to the same condition till the expiry of the stipulated period of two months given for exercising options and in the event of their exercising option to remain with the Corporation, they will be deemed to have severed all connections with the State Government service from the date of completion of the period of two months given for exercising option under this Government resolution." Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State in his reply submitted that the resolution is of no avail to the petitioner as he was working as work-charge tubewell operator and such option was available only to regular employees. It is submitted that when the entire tubewell work stood transferred to the Corporation, the work-charge employees could claim no right of option to remain in service of the Panchayat and were compulsorily transferred en bloc to the Corporation. It is not in dispute that total service period of the petitioner in the service of Panchayat is 9 years - 4 months and 11 days, which is short only by a few months to be able to claim pensionary benefits for which minimum qualifying period of service prescribed is ten years. The short question that arises before me is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to take the benefit of resolution, dated 14.10.1981 and seek addition of period of his service in the Corporation for claiming pensionary benefits. Relevant part of resolution has already been quoted above. The short question that arises before me is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to take the benefit of resolution, dated 14.10.1981 and seek addition of period of his service in the Corporation for claiming pensionary benefits. Relevant part of resolution has already been quoted above. It is not made clear in the resolution dated 14.10.1981 that work-charged employees are outside its purview. Even if the petitioner was work-charged employee, he could have claimed a right not to seek transfer to the Corporation service but to seek employment elsewhere. Since his services were compulsorily transferred without taking any option from him under the resolution dated 14.10.1981 along with other employees transferred from different departments, he would be deemed to be work-charged employee on deputation from the service of the Panchayat to the services of the Corporation. Period of service, therefore, spent by him in the Corporation has to be added to his pensionary service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner on attaining superannuation age of 58 years, has retired on 30.4.1988 and before his retirement, had not exercised any option to be absorbed in the services of the Corporation. Subsequent resolution on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the State, therefore, cannot be made applicable to him as the same has been issued after his retirement. As a result of the discussion above, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3- i.e., Panchayat Department represented through the District Development Officer and Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Government of Gujarat, are directed to entertain the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his pension and allow him pensionary benefits by treating him to have completed ten years of qualifying service. Since the petitioner retired in 1988, on his making suitable approach in writing to the concerned authorities (respondents Nos. 1 and 3), within a period of one month, necessary orders in his favour would be passed to enable him to obtain pension within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of representation. His pension be fixed from the due date and arrears to be also paid to him. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. His pension be fixed from the due date and arrears to be also paid to him. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. It is also brought to my notice that the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was a subject matter of challenge in Letters Patent Appeal No. 831 of 2000 preferred by the District Development Officer. The challenge failed in the appeal and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed. In this view of the matter, no extensive discussion is necessary in this regard. However, learned AGP Ms Krina P. Calla has brought to my notice an identical petition being Special Civil Application No. 3372 of 2001 wherein the same issue was involved and the same reliefs were prayed for and the said petition was rejected on the ground of delay vide order dated 30.1.2009. 5. Be that as it may. In the facts and circumstances of that particular case, the learned Single Judge may have thought fit to reject the petition. However, so far as the aspect of delay is concerned, I cannot be oblivious of the fact that what is being prayed for by the petitioners is for pensionary benefits. Even otherwise, having regard to the facts of the case and their date of retirement and filing of the petition, there does not appear to be any gross or inordinate delay. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 has observed as under:- 7. To summarise, normally a belated served related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 6. Way back in 1974, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of RS Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1974 SC 259 , has taken the view that the rule which says that a Court may not inquire into belated or stale claims is not a rule of law, but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each case must depend on its own facts. Applying the principles as explained by the Supreme Court on the issue of delay, and taking note of the fact that by granting reliefs as prayed for, I am not disturbing the rights which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the petition, the reliefs as prayed for deserves to be granted. Had it been such a case, probably the Court would be justified in not entertaining the petition on the ground of delay. Had it been such a case, probably the Court would be justified in not entertaining the petition on the ground of delay. However, in the present case, the petitioners hailing from lower strata of society having put in years of service are claiming for their pensionary rights. 7. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to entertain the claim of the petitioners for fixation of their pension and allow them the pensionary benefits by treating them to have completed ten years of qualifying service. Since the petitioners have retired, on their making suitable approach in writing to the concerned authorities (respondents Nos. 1 and 4), within a period of one month, necessary orders in their favour would be passed to enable them to obtain pension within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Their pension be fixed from the due date and arrears to be also paid to them. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs." 7. I may quote the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1552 of 2009 decided on 13th September, 2012 as under: "1. We have heard Mr. G.M. Amin, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, learned AGP for respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. R C. Jani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. This LPA has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7066 of 1999. 2. The appellant was appointed as Tube Well Operator in work charge establishment on 17.10.1968 in the service of Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad. Respondent No. 3 - Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') was created w.e.f. 8.6.1978. Thereafter services of the employees of Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat (for short, 'Panchayat') stood transferred to the newly created Corporation and the employees including the appellant was treated on deputation as per Government Resolution dated 14.10.1981. It was also provided in this Resolution that services of the employees transferred from the Panchayat shall be treated to be on deputation with the Corporation till they are absorbed in the services of the Corporation. It was also provided in this Resolution that services of the employees transferred from the Panchayat shall be treated to be on deputation with the Corporation till they are absorbed in the services of the Corporation. In the year 1981, options were invited and the appellant opted for pension and absorption in the services of the Corporation and he was absorbed in service on 14.12.1981. The appellant retired on 13.12.1996. The appellant claimed pension from the respondent-Panchayat on the ground that the appellant has worked for a period of 10 years in the Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat and those employees who were working for a period of 10 years or more were entitled to pension from the Panchayat. It is not disputed that from 14.12.1981 when the appellant was absorbed in services of the Corporation no pension was payable to him. 3. The argument of Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 is that the appellant's services were transferred to the Corporation on 8.6.1978 and, therefore, on that date, the appellant had not completed 10 years' service which is qualifying service for grant of pension with the Ahmedabad Zilla Panchayat. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was on deputation with the Corporation till 13.12.1981 and, therefore, his services till 13.12.1981 has to be treated in his parent cadre i.e. Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat. This question came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6690 of 1989 in the case of Narubha Mahobatsinh Jhala v. District Development Officer & Ors. decided on 11.8.2000 wherein the learned Single Judge took the view that till the work-charged employees of Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat were absorbed in the services of the Corporation he was on deputation with the Corporation and, therefore, he has to be treated to be an employee of the Ahmedabad Zilla Panchayat and if he has completed 10 years of service prior to his absorption in the services of the Corporation then he would be entitled for pension. Operative portion of the order dated 11.8.2000 is reproduced hereunder: "As a result of the discussion above, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents Nos. Operative portion of the order dated 11.8.2000 is reproduced hereunder: "As a result of the discussion above, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 - i.e. Panchayat Department represented through the District Development Officer and Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Government of Gujarat, are directed to entertain the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his pension and allow him pensionary benefits by treating him to have completed ten years of qualifying service. Since the petitioner retired in 1988, on his making suitable approach in writing to the concerned authorities respondents Nos. 1 and 3, within a period of one month, necessary orders in his favour would be passed to enable him to obtain pension within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of representation. His pension be fixed from the due date and arrears to be also paid to him." This decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in LPA No. 831 of 2000 in the case of District Development Officer & Ors. v. Narubha Mahobatsinh Jhala decided on 12.1.2005. Para No. 5 of the said decision is reproduced as under: "5. Under the circumstances, when the learned Chief Justice of this Court allowed the petition of the original petitioner and directed the present appellant No. 1-District Development Officer, Ahmedabad and original respondent No. 3-The Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Government of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to entertain the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his pension and allowing him pensionary benefits treating him to have completed 10 years of qualifying service, then on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we would not like to interfere with such order in our Letters Patent Jurisdiction." The above decision became final and binding on the respondent-Panchayat namely Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat. Therefore, the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and since the appellant remained on deputation with the Corporation till 13.12.1981 and joined services of Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat in the year 1968, he completed more than 10 years of qualifying service and so he is entitled to pension from Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat, consequently the appellant shall be paid. Therefore, Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat, has to forward papers to respondent No. 2 for payment of pension to the appellant. 4. Therefore, Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat, has to forward papers to respondent No. 2 for payment of pension to the appellant. 4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should have claimed and challenged that he had completed more than 10 years' service in the year 1981 itself. According to learned Single Judge, the cause of action for getting his service calculated arose to the petitioner in the year 1981 and, therefore, the writ petition was barred by delay and laches. In paras 8, 9 and 10 of the order, the learned Single Judge has observed as under: 8. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties. Admittedly earlier the petitioner was in Panchayat Department. It is only because of option given to him the petitioner was taken in the respondent Corporation. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the respondent is not entitled to pension after the period of 1981. Thus the claim of the petitioner is prior to 1981 which is claimed in the present petition. Even looking to the clauses of the Resolution of 1981 it is clear that the petitioner had no objection in opting the service with the Corporation, otherwise, the petitioner would not have got the employment as his services would have been terminated or retrenched. In any case, the cause of action as contended in the petition is of the year 1981 and there is a gross delay in filing the petition which cannot be condoned in view of the settled legal position. In the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330 it is held that if petition is filed beyond reasonable period, say three years, normally Court would reject the same or restrict the relief. The learned Advocate had unsuccessfully argued that the cause of action has arisen in the year 1995, but on the facts it is otherwise. 9. It is required to be noted that in the year 1981 it would have been retrenchment and not a retirement, and therefore the petitioner would not have become eligible for pension. 10. In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in this petition. This petition is, therefore, dismissed." In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct. 10. In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in this petition. This petition is, therefore, dismissed." In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct. The cause of action arose to the petitioner after retirement when the respondents failed to count his service of 10 years from 1978 till 1981 prior to the petitioner's absorption of service in the Corporation. Prior to it there was no question of payment of any pension. Therefore, the petitioner could not have raised any grievance for counting of service in 1981 itself. For the aforesaid, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be maintained and deserves to be set aside. We may make it clear that barring this the appellant will neither raise any other claim nor the respondent will entertain any such claim on the part of the appellant. 5. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7066 of 1999 is set aside. We hold that the appellant has actually worked with the respondent No. 1 Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat from 17.10.1968 to 13.12.1981 and he was entitled to pension from respondent No. 1 as he has completed more than 10 years of qualifying service. The pension papers shall be prepared by respondent No. 1 and sent to respondent No. 2 within a period of 8 weeks from today and respondent No. 2 shall in turn pass appropriate orders for payment of pension within a further period of 12 weeks. Parties shall bear their own costs." 8. In view of the above, all these writ applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to entertain the claims of the petitioners for fixation of their pension and grant them the pensionary benefits treating to have completed ten years of the qualifying service. Since the petitioners have retired, on their making suitable approach in writing to the concerned authorities - the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 within a period of one month, the necessary orders in favour of the petitioners shall be passed to enable them to obtain the pension within the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The pension of the petitioners be fixed from the due date and arrears to be paid to them accordingly. 9. The pension of the petitioners be fixed from the due date and arrears to be paid to them accordingly. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.