JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. The petitioner before me is a retired employee of the Tarapur Gram Panchayat, District Anand. He has prayed for the following reliefs:- "7(A) Admit this petition. (B) Allow this petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order dated 26/08/09 by the respondent No. 2 and thereby hold that the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefit from the date of his joining service in the Panchayat with arrears and interest and thereby, be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of pension to the petitioner within a stipulated time. (C) Further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the delay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of pension as the delay has been caused due to the arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. (D) Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition direct the respondents to make ex-gratia/ad-hoc payment of Rs. 2 lac to the petitioner with a view to save the petitioner from starvation. (E) Grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice." 2. Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that his client retired after serving the Panchayat for more than thirty years. However, he is not being given the benefits of pension. He submitted that the petitioner was given the benefits of the higher pay scales as he was treated as a permanent employee of the panchayat, but the pensionary benefits are being denied. 3. Mr. Munshaw, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the panchayat vehemently opposed this writ application and submitted that the petitioner was appointed at the relevant point of time by the panchayat by just passing a resolution. At no point of time, any sanction or approval was obtained from the competent authority. The service tenure although may be very long, but he continued as an employee appointed by way of a backdoor entry. 4. Mr. Munshaw has relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the panchayat: "2. At no point of time, any sanction or approval was obtained from the competent authority. The service tenure although may be very long, but he continued as an employee appointed by way of a backdoor entry. 4. Mr. Munshaw has relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the panchayat: "2. The respondent No. 2 most respectfully submits that the petitioner herein was employed by the Gram Panchayat on its own without following due procedure of recruitment as a Clerk through a resolution No. 129 dated 07/09/1974 and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is humbly stated that as such the post of Clerk of Accountant is not sanctioned by the competent authority i.e. the Development Commissioner of State of Gujarat and the appointment of the petitioner was not only irregular and without following due procedure of recruitment but also not on the sanctioned post. It is further stated that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Clerk as well as Accountant so far as the Tarapur Gram Panchayat is concerned and even the payment of salary was made by the Gram Panchayat from its own funds and the respondent No. 1 herein has never sanctioned or provided any grant for the same. 3. The respondent No. 2 submits that neither prior to appointment of the petitioner herein nor thereafter no sanction was obtained by the Body of Tarapur Gram Panchayat from the District Development Officer or Development Commissioner or the State Government and it continued as irregular appointment and the petitioner remained as an employee of Gram Panchayat. At the cost of repetition, the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner was never a Panchayat servant duly appointed under the provisions of Rules framed under Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 and therefore, he is not entitled to retiral benefits available to a Panchayat servant from the State Government. It is further stated that the petitioner herein was not a civil servant and therefore he cannot ask for such retiral benefits available to the civil servant from the State Government. 4. It is further stated that the petitioner herein was not a civil servant and therefore he cannot ask for such retiral benefits available to the civil servant from the State Government. 4. The respondent No. 2 submits that the benefits were given to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat through time-to-time resolutions and at no point of time any prior approval or sanction were obtained from the competent authority and the Assistant Examiner of Local Fund Audit has also not granted any approval and on the contrary recovery was suggested by the said authority after raising objections. 5. The respondent No. 2 submits that so far as Tarapur Grant Panchayat is concerned, it has not framed any scheme or policy for retiral benefits like provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance etc. and hence the petitioner herein cannot ask for such benefits in absence of such scheme or policy. It is pertinent to note that even there is no scheme, policy and rules & regulations of contributory provident fund or general provident fund and therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for any such retiral benefits from the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that as the petitioner was neither a Panchayat servant nor civil servant, he cannot ask for the relief from the respondent No. 1. 6. The respondent No. 2 humbly states that Tarapur Gram Panchayat is not a converted Gram Panchayat from Municipality and therefore, employees of the Gram Panchayat are not liable and entitled for any pensionary benefit as per the policy of the State Government. It is stated that as such State Government's decision for granting pensionary benefit is only for the employees of converted Gram Panchayat and therefore, the said Government Resolution dated 21/11/1007 is not applicable in the present case. 7. The respondent No. 2 most respectfully states that the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, through a judgment dated 02/07/2009 delivered in a group of Letters Patent Appeals, has held that irregularly employed employees of Gram Panchayats, who are not selected and appointed under the provisions of Section 211 of Gujarat Panchayat Act, are not entitled for pensionary benefit from the State Government. 8. 8. In view of the above mentioned facts & circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has not caused any injustice by way of not releasing the pensionary benefit as prayed by him and hence, this Hon'ble Court is humbly prayed not to grant any interim relief and reject the present Special Civil Application in limine with cost in the interest of justice." 5. On 23rd April, 2010, the following order was passed: "Rule. The petitioner who was appointed as a Clerk on 12.08.1974 in Tarapur Gram Panchayat and after service of ten years he has become permanent employee of the Panchayat by passing order on 01.01.1984 by the Panchayat. The petitioner retired on his superannuation on 19.07.2008 and applied for pensionary benefits to the respondent which was turned down by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was not regularly appointed employee and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits. According to the petitioner he was regularized in Tarapur Gram Panchayat after completing of ten years of service as a Clerk vide resolution dated 24.01.1984. Therefore, even if the year 1984 is taken as the service of the year of the petitioner, the petitioner has completed 24 years of service as he retired in the year 2008. The Government Resolution dated 21.11.1997 made it clear that all the benefits are required to be given by the Panchayat to their employees and considering the same, the respondent No. 2 has passed the resolution to give all the benefits including pension to the employees of the Panchayat by the Panchayat. Even then, the petitioner was not granted pensionary benefit. It is stated by learned advocate for the petitioner that inspite of the G.R. dated 21.11.1997 and though he was a permanent employee, the Gram Panchayat has not sent the proposal for pensionary benefits of the petitioner to the Government. In view of the above, respondent No. 2-Panchayat shall forward the proposal of the petitioner whether the petitioner was regularized vide resolution dated 24.01.1984. The record shows that the service of the petitioner was regularized vide resolution dated 24.01.1984. If we take the year 1984 as the regularization of the service of the petitioner in Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has completed 24 years of service as he retired on 19.07.2008. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has a pensionable service. The record shows that the service of the petitioner was regularized vide resolution dated 24.01.1984. If we take the year 1984 as the regularization of the service of the petitioner in Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has completed 24 years of service as he retired on 19.07.2008. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has a pensionable service. Inspite of Resolution passed on 21.11.1997, the Gram Panchayat has not forwarded the proposal to the State Government. Prima facie, in view of the settled law, the petitioner is considered as employee of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was also granted benefit of higher pay scale as he was considered as permanent employee of the Panchayat at the time of granting higher pay scale on 24.06.1997. In view of that, respondent No. 2-Panchayat is directed to examine the case papers of the pension of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and will forward the same to the respondent No. 1. On furnishing such papers, respondent No. 1 will forward the papers to the appropriate Department and will take decision within a period of four months from the date of the order of this Court. Direct service is permitted." 6. Against the order referred to above, it appears that the Panchayat preferred the Letters Patent Appeal No. 943 of 2011. The Letters Patent Appeal came to be allowed by order dated 30th June, 2011. The order reads thus: "1. We have heard Mr. N.J. Shah, learned AGP for the appellant, Mr. Dharmesh Patel, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Admit. Mr. Dharmesh Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 waive service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. Learned counsel for the parties state that this appeal may be heard and decided finally today itself. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this matter for final disposal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Clerk on 12.08.1974 in Tarapur Gram Panchayat and after the service of ten years he had become permanent employee of the Panchayat w.e.f. 1.1.1984. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this matter for final disposal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Clerk on 12.08.1974 in Tarapur Gram Panchayat and after the service of ten years he had become permanent employee of the Panchayat w.e.f. 1.1.1984. He had retired on 19.7.2009 and applied for pensionary benefits to the respondent Panchayat which was turned down on the ground that he was not regularly appointed employee and therefore, the respondent was not entitled for pensionary benefits. 3. The respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 3422 of 2010 in which order dated 23.4.2010 has been passed by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of this writ petition. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has either disposed of the writ petition or allowed the writ petition or it was dismissed. In absence of any such direction, the writ petition shall be treated to be pending before the learned Single Judge. Last para of the order dated 23.4.2010 is extracted below: "In view of the above, respondent No. 2-Panchayat shall forward the proposal of the petitioner whether the petitioner was regularized vide resolution dated 24.01.1984. The record shows that the service of the petitioner was regularized vide resolution dated 24.01.1984. If we take the year 1984 as the regularization of the service of the petitioner in Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has completed 24 years of service as he retired on 19.07.2008. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has a pensionable service. Inspite of Resolution passed on 21.11.1997, the Gram Panchayat has not forwarded the proposal to the State Government. Prima facie, in view of the settled law, the petitioner is considered as employee of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was also granted benefit of higher pay scale as he was considered as permanent employee of the Panchayat at the time of granting higher pay scale on 24.06.1997. In view of that, respondent No. 2-Panchayat is directed to examine the case papers of the pension of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and will forward the same to the respondent No. 1. In view of that, respondent No. 2-Panchayat is directed to examine the case papers of the pension of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and will forward the same to the respondent No. 1. On furnishing such papers, respondent No. 1 will forward the papers to the appropriate Department and will take decision within a period of four months from the date of the order of this Court. Direct service is permitted." The Learned Single Judge has granted four weeks time to the Panchayat to examine the case papers of the pension of the petitioner and thereafter direction was given to the State to forward the papers to the concerned Department to take decision within a further period of four months. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has urged that this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants only after the notices have been issued by the Contempt Bench and further action is being taken by the Contempt Bench. Since Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has informed the Court that the learned AGP who was appearing before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition did not file any affidavit-in-reply nor learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat has filed affidavit-in-reply. They may file their affidavits-in-reply before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition within a period of three weeks from today as the writ petition is still pending. 5. We find that in the order of the learned Single Judge on the one hand directs the Panchayat to forward the proposal of the petitioner whether the petitioner was regularized vide Resolution dated 24.01.1984. It means the learned Single Judge was not sure whether the petitioner was regularized in service vide Resolution dated 24.1.1984. On the other hand, the learned Single has observed that as per record, the service of the respondent was regularized vide Resolution dated 24.1.1984 and he had completed 24 years of service and the service is pensionable. It means the learned Single Judge was not sure whether the petitioner was regularized in service vide Resolution dated 24.1.1984. On the other hand, the learned Single has observed that as per record, the service of the respondent was regularized vide Resolution dated 24.1.1984 and he had completed 24 years of service and the service is pensionable. Since we are setting aside the order dated 23.4.2010 on the basis of contradiction contained in the order and since an opportunity is being granted to the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 to file affidavit-in-reply afresh before the learned Single Judge and after the affidavits-in-reply is filed, the petitioner may file affidavit-in-rejoinder and thereafter the learned Single Judge may finally decide the writ petition at the earliest subject to His Lordship's convenience. 4. In the result, this Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3422 of 2010 is set aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide Special Civil Application No. 3422 of 2010 after exchange of the affidavits and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at an early date subject to His Lordship's convenience." 7. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was appointed after following the regular recruitment process. All through out, the petitioner remained as an employee of the Gram Panchayat. In such circumstances, he could not be said to be a member of the Panchayat Service under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. 8. The issue raised herein is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chorvad Gram Panchayat & Others vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & Others, LPA No. 1381 of 2014 and allied matters decided on 2nd July, 2009. The issue in the said case was also one regarding the claim of pensionary benefits under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976. The Division Bench held that unless and until the appointments are made after following the provisions laid down under Section 203 of the Act, a person so appointed would not fall within the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203(1) of the Act. The Division Bench held that unless and until the appointments are made after following the provisions laid down under Section 203 of the Act, a person so appointed would not fall within the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203(1) of the Act. I may quote the entire judgment which reads as under: "The question that has come up for consideration in all these cases is whether a person who has been appointed in a Panchayat without following the procedures laid down under Section 203(4)(b) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (for short the Act), can be treated as a member of the Panchayat service so as to claim the pensionary benefits under Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1972, and/or such appointee can be treated as an employee retired from the Panchayat service. 2. Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit, learned Single Judge while deciding Special Civil Application No. 354 of 2004 has taken the view that a person who has not been appointed in the Panchayat service following the provisions of Section 203 of the Act, cannot be treated as a Panchayat employee so as to claim the pensionary benefits under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short the Pension Rules) or to claim family pension under the Family Pension Scheme or from the Panchayat itself, in absence of a pension scheme. Mr. Justice Akshay H. Mehta, another learned Single Judge (as he then was), while deciding Special Civil Application No. 2019 of 1988 has also took the view that merely because Pension Rules have been framed by the State Government, it cannot be saddled with the liability to discharge the burden of the Panchayats with regard to pensionary benefits to the retired servants of the Panchayats. Learned Single Judge however interpreting Section 204 of the Act, held that expenditure towards pay and allowance and other benefits available to an officer or servant of Panchayat shall have to be met by the Panchayat from its own funds and therefore, it is the responsibility of the Panchayat to discharge liability of retiral benefits and the family pension to the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, another learned Single Judge has felt that there is a conflict between the views expressed by both the Judges and hence, passed an order on 17th February, 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 13990 of 1993, directing the Registry to place all these matters before a Bench for appropriate decision so as to settle the controversy, since large number of cases are pending claiming similar benefits by the retired employees, including family pension. We have therefore, posted all these appeals for a final decision on various issues raised before us for consideration. 3. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, Mr. P.V. Hathi and Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for different Panchayats, Mr. M.D. Rana, Murli Devnani, Mr. Hasit H. Joshi and Mr. A.R. Thacker appearing for the employees of the Panchayat, and also learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Monali Bhatt, appearing for the State Government. 4. For disposal of the issue involved in these appeals, we refer to the facts of Special Civil Application No. 354 of 2004, against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 1522 of 2004 has been preferred. 5. One Vela Keshav was appointed by Okha Gram Panchayat as Safai Kamdar in the year 1964. He died on 6.2.1997 in harness. He was appointed under a Resolution passed by the Panchayat. Admittedly, he was not appointed following the procedure laid down under Section 204 of the Act. On the death of Vela Keshav, his widow submitted an application for retiral benefits and family pension. District Panchayat Officer as well as the State took up the stand that since Vela Keshav was not appointed by the District Panchayat Selection Committee constituted under Section 211 of the Act, and since he was not a member of the Panchayat service as envisaged under Section 203(1) of the Act, he was not entitled to claim parity with the Government servants and hence, not entitled to get the benefit of Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short the Pension Rules) or Family Pension Scheme, 1972. Further it was pointed out that those employees appointed by following the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act were given the benefits admissible on par with Government servants. Further it was pointed out that those employees appointed by following the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act were given the benefits admissible on par with Government servants. Learned Single Judge accepted the stand of the District Panchayat Officer as well as the State Government and took the view that since Vela Keshav was not appointed following the procedure laid down under Section 203(4) (b) of the Act, he cannot be said to be a member of the Panchayat service as per Section 203(1) of the Act and hence, he was not entitled to get the pensionary benefits. Consequently, it was held that petitioner was not entitled to get family pension under the Family Pension Scheme applicable to the members of Panchayat service. 6. Deputy Secretary, Panchayats Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, State of Gujarat, filed a detailed affidavit in the above mentioned case, stating that Okha Gram Panchayat was originally of Okha Municipality and after coming into force Panchayati Raj, Okha Municipality was converted into Okha Nagar Panchayat, but in view of population existing at the relevant point of time, it was required to be converted into Gram Panchayat and after conversion into Gram Panchayat, the then existing staff of Municipality was allocated to Gram Panchayat and they were treated on par with Panchayat service. It was stated that the allocated employees were therefore, entitled to get pensionary benefits. So far as case of Vela Keshav was concerned, he was not an allocated employee and his appointment was not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Act and therefore, he was not entitled to get pensionary benefits available to Panchayat servants or pension under the Pension Rules. Further it was also stated that it was the responsibility of Okha Gram Panchayat to pay pensionary benefits from its own fund, as applicable at the time of appointment of Vela Keshav. 7. Detailed affidavit has also been filed by Mamlatdar, Dwarka, appointed as Administrator of Okha Municipal Borough, stating that Gram Panchayat has never adopted any Pension Scheme, nor was deceased Vela Keshav appointed on such terms and conditions that he would be entitled to get such pensionary benefits. 7. Detailed affidavit has also been filed by Mamlatdar, Dwarka, appointed as Administrator of Okha Municipal Borough, stating that Gram Panchayat has never adopted any Pension Scheme, nor was deceased Vela Keshav appointed on such terms and conditions that he would be entitled to get such pensionary benefits. It was also stated that there was no separate and independent Pension Scheme applicable to Gram Panchayat, and the Panchayat employees would be entitled to get pension only by virtue of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, which came into force with effect from 1.4.1963 and applicable to all the cadres in District, Taluka and Local, for which necessary option was asked for from the employees working in Okha Gram Panchayat as well. Further it was also stated that Vela Keshav was also submitted an option in a prescribed form, though belatedly, but the same was rejected by the Local Fund office since he was not a member of the Panchayat service. Under the circumstances, Panchayat has also taken up the stand that since it is not governed by any Pension Scheme as such, the employees who were appointed otherwise than through regular selection procedure by District Panchayat Selection Committee under Section 203 of the Act would not entitle to get any pension in absence of any Pension Scheme applicable to them. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that even the Government or the Panchayat have no power to regularise persons like Vela Keshav, who have been appointed only on the basis of resolutions passed by the Panchayat. Counsel submitted that there is no obligation on the part of the Panchayat or the State Government to regularise their service so as to treat them as members of the Panchayat service. Learned counsel submitted that mere fact that such employees have put in long years of service does not mean that they are entitled to be regularised in service. Reference was made to the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the three Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 and the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. G.V. Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342 . Counsel submitted that applying the principle laid down in Umadevi's case, service of persons like Vela Keshav cannot be regularised by the Government to make them members of Panchayat service, merely because they have put in long years of service. 9. Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to village Panchayat and district local Boards in the State of Gujarat with a view to reorganise the administration pertaining to local Government in furtherance of the object of the democratic decentralisation of powers in favour of different classes of Panchayats. For the purpose of the said Act, there shall be in each district a Gram Panchayat for each Gram, a Nagar Panchayat for each Nagar, a Taluka Panchayat for each Taluka and a District Panchayat for the District, as per Section 3 of the Act. Section 102 of the Act deals with officers and servants of the Panchayat. It says that subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, there shall be a Secretary for every Gram Panchayat and Nagar Panchayat, who shall be appointed in accordance with the rules. Section 102(b) of the Act states that a Gram Panchayat or as the case may be, Nagar Panchayat, shall have such other servants as may be determined under Section 203 and such servants shall be appointed by such authority and their conditions of service shall be such as may be prescribed. Section 122 of the Act deals with Officers and Servants of Taluka Panchayat. Section 142 of the Act deals with Officers and servants of District Panchayat. Chapter XI deals with provisions relating to Panchayat service. Section 203 of the Act falls under that Chapter. The relevant portion of Section 203 of the Act is extracted hereunder for easy reference. 203. (1) For the purpose of bringing about uniform scales of pay and uniform conditions of service for persons employed in the discharge of functions and duties of Panchayats, there shall be constituted a Panchayat Service in connection with the affairs of Panchayats. Such service shall be distinct from the State Service. 203. (1) For the purpose of bringing about uniform scales of pay and uniform conditions of service for persons employed in the discharge of functions and duties of Panchayats, there shall be constituted a Panchayat Service in connection with the affairs of Panchayats. Such service shall be distinct from the State Service. (2) The Panchayat Service shall consist of such classes, cadres and posts and the initial strength of officers and servants in each such class and cadre shall be such, as the State Government may by order from time to time determine: Provided that nothing in this sub-Section shall prevent a district Panchayat from altering, with the previous approval of the State Government, any class, cadre or number of posts so determined by the State Government. (2A)(a) The cadres referred to in sub-Section (2) may consist of district cadres, taluka cadres and local cadres. (b) A servant belonging to a district cadre shall be liable to be posted whether by promotion or transfer to any post in any taluka in the district. (c) Servant belonging to a taluka cadre shall be liable to be posted, whether by promotion or transfer to any post in any gram or nagar in the same taluka. (d) A servant belonging to a local cadre shall be liable to be posted whether by promotion or transfer to any post in the same gram or, as the case may be, nagar. (2B) In addition to the posts in the cadres referred to in sub-Section (2A), a Panchayat may have such other posts of such classes as the State Government may by general or special order determine. Such posts shall be called deputation posts and shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of Section 207. (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may make rules regulating the mode of recruitment either by holding examinations or otherwise and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Panchayat service and the powers in respect of appointments, transfers and promotions of officers and servants in the Panchayats Service and disciplinary action against any such officers or servants. (4) Rules made under sub-section (3) shall in particular contain:- (a) A provision entitling servants of such cadres in the Panchayat Service to promotion to such cadre in the State Service as may be prescribed. (4) Rules made under sub-section (3) shall in particular contain:- (a) A provision entitling servants of such cadres in the Panchayat Service to promotion to such cadre in the State Service as may be prescribed. (b) A provision specifying the classes of posts recruitment to which shall be made through the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee and the class of posts, recruitment to which shall be made by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. 10. Section 323 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, enables State Government to make Rules, and as per the powers conferred under Section 323 of the Act, Government of Gujarat framed Gujarat District Panchayat Service Selection Committee (Functions) Rules, 1964. Definitions 2 (vi) says Panchayat Service means service as constituted by an order made by Government from time to time under Section 203 of the Act. Section 211 of the Panchayat Act, 1961 says that there shall be District Panchayat Service Selection Committee in each district for selecting candidates for recruitment to such posts of the Panchayat service and to advise the Panchayats in such matters and to perform such other functions as may be prescribed. Selection Committee has been defined under Rule 2 (ix). 11. The Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 323 read with clauses (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 102, clause 3 of Section 122 and clause (3) of Section 142 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, made Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967. 12. Above mentioned Rules clearly indicate that the appointments in the district cadres, taluka cadres and local cadres shall have to be made after following provisions laid down under Section 203 of the Act and persons so appointed would fall within the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203(1) of the Act. Once selection of an incumbent is made following the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act, appointments are effected by the appointing authorities under the Gujarat Panchayat (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967 framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 323, read with clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 102, Clause (3) of Section 122 and clause (3) of Section 142 of the Act. 13. 13. Sub-Section (2) of Section 203 of the Act says that Panchayat Service shall consist of such classes, cadres and posts and the initial strength of officers and servants in each such class and cadre shall be such, as the State Government may by order from time to time determine. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section (2) of Section 203 of the Act, the State Government issued an order dated 2.1.1967 indicating respective cadres to which different posts in the Panchayat service belong. Yet another Departmental order was issued on 30.3.1977 dealing with district cadre, taluka cadre and local cadre. Part-I deals with district cadre, Part-II deals with taluka cadre and Part-III deals with local cadre. Service conditions of a Panchayat servant is governed by the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. The word Panchayat service is defined as a Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Act. Vela Keshav was never appointed by following above mentioned Rules or statutory provisions by way of selection made by the Staff Selection Committee constituted under Sec. 211 of the Act. Only those persons who are appointed in the Panchayat Service following the recruitment procedure laid down under Section 203(4) (b) of the Act, can be treated as members of Panchayat service. 14. Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred under Section 323 read with Section 203 of the Act, made Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976. Rule 3 of the Pension Rules says that Pension Rules shall apply to all Panchayat servants. Panchayat Servant has been defined under Rule 2(d) to mean any person who belongs to Superior Panchayat service or, as the case may be, the Inferior Panchayat service. Rule 2(c) defines Inferior Panchayat Service to mean the Inferior Panchayat service as constituted by clause (d) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967. Rule 2(e) defines Superior Panchayat Service' to mean the Superior Panchayat service as constituted by clause (a) of sub-rule 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967. Gujarat Panchayat Service Rules, 1967 would apply to only those Panchayat servants, and shall not apply to certain categories of Panchayat servants. For easy reference, Rule (3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 is extracted hereunder:- 3. Gujarat Panchayat Service Rules, 1967 would apply to only those Panchayat servants, and shall not apply to certain categories of Panchayat servants. For easy reference, Rule (3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 is extracted hereunder:- 3. Applicability and option- (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to all the Panchayats Servants, but shall not apply to:- (a) A panchayat servant not in the whole time employment of the panchayat. (b) A panchayat servant paid out of contingencies. (c) A panchayat servant paid otherwise than, on monthly basis, including those paid only on piece rate basis. (d) A panchayat servant appointed on work-charged establishment or on daily rate basis or employed casually. (e) A panchayat servant entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund; other than that who opts to take the benefit of these rules in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 3. (f) A panchayat servant employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise: Provided that any such panchayat servant to whom these rules shall apply, have the right to opt to continue to be governed by any pension rules applicable to him immediately before the coming into force of these rules. Such of option shall be exercised in writing case Form in A before the 9th May, 1976. The option once exercised, shall be final. (2) The option exercised under sub-rule (1), shall be communicated by the panchayat servant, to the Head of his office. This option when received from a Panchayat Servant should be countersigned by the Head of office and posted in the Service Book or, as the case may be Service Roll of the panchayat servant concerned. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the Head of Office to acknowledge the option and the panchayat servant concerned shall ensure that the receipt of his option is acknowledged by the Head of Office and that he receives an intimation that it has been duly recorded by the Head of Office. 15. We may indicate that Vela Keshav had submitted an application exercising his option under the proviso to Rule 3 of the above Rules, but the same was rejected by the Local fund office stating that he was not a member of the Panchayat service. 15. We may indicate that Vela Keshav had submitted an application exercising his option under the proviso to Rule 3 of the above Rules, but the same was rejected by the Local fund office stating that he was not a member of the Panchayat service. We are therefore, clearly of the view that only those employees who have been appointed following the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, under Section 323 of the Act would alone be a member of the Panchayat service, apart from the allocated employees from the Municipality to the Panchayats on its formation, or other employees who have been recognized as member of the Panchayat service by the State Government, or by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. Since Vela Keshav was never a member of Panchayat service, in our view he is not entitled to get pension under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 or any Pension Scheme framed by the Government for grant of Family Pension or otherwise for members of the Panchayat service. 16. We may indicate that the view taken by us is in consonance with the view expressed by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. R.K. Soni, AIR 1984 SC 161 , in which decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 24 referred to the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Absorption Seniority Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1965, which provided for the equation of posts, fixation of seniority, scales of pay and allowances of allocated employees. It was noted that the Rule provided that every allocated employee holding a corresponding post immediately before the appointed day, shall be appointed to the equivalent post. It was observed that unless equivalence of posts is first determined, by order, by the Government, the said Rules could not be effectively applied. The Government however, did not make any order regarding equation of posts of the staff in the local cadre and the fixation of their scale of pay although such orders were made in respect of posts of other cadres. 17. Circular issued by the Government bearing No. NPM/1083-964-K(1) dated 25.8.1983 would indicate that Gram and the Nagar Panchayats have no power or authority under Section 102 of the Act to recruit, fix pay scales or prescribe qualifications for recruitment of the employees. 18. 17. Circular issued by the Government bearing No. NPM/1083-964-K(1) dated 25.8.1983 would indicate that Gram and the Nagar Panchayats have no power or authority under Section 102 of the Act to recruit, fix pay scales or prescribe qualifications for recruitment of the employees. 18. We are also of the view that learned Single Judge (Akshay Mehta, J.) was not justified in giving a positive direction to the Gram Panchayat to pay pensionary benefits to Vela Keshav and family pension to his widow by holding that under Section 203, read with Sec. 204 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, Panchayat has got a statutory obligation to pay pensionary benefits. In our view, the learned Single Judge has completely misunderstood the scope of Section 204 of the Act. Section 204 of the Act says that subject to the rules, which the State Government may make in this behalf, the expenditure towards the pay and allowances of and other benefits available to an officer or servant of the Panchayat Service serving for the time being under any panchayat shall be met by that panchayat from its own fund. In our view, Section 204 of the Act would apply to the officers and servants of Panchayat service which says that their pay and allowances be met by the Panchayat from its fund. Panchayat may give salary and other benefits including Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. to persons like Vela Keshav, appointed on the basis of resolutions passed by the Panchayat and not by following the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act. Mere fact that Panchayat has paid salary and other benefits to Vela Keshav does not mean that he was a member of the Panchayat service so as to get the benefit available to members of Panchayat service. Panchayat, in its counter affidavit has stated that they have not framed any Pension Scheme for employees like Vela Keshav. In the absence of any Pension Scheme, in our view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the Panchayat to pay pensionary benefits to Vela Keshav and family pension to his widow. Needless to say that all the statutory benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. may be available to such persons and not the pensionary benefits or the family pension unless there is a Pension Scheme available to such employees. 19. Needless to say that all the statutory benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. may be available to such persons and not the pensionary benefits or the family pension unless there is a Pension Scheme available to such employees. 19. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1522 of 2004, 1523 of 2004 and 614 of 1998 and allow Letters Patent Appeal No. 1381 of 2004, declaring that only those employees who have been appointed in the Panchayat service following the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, can be treated as member of the Panchayat service entitled to get pensionary benefits under Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 and Family Pension Scheme, 1972. We further hold that those persons who have been appointed by the Panchayat in their service otherwise than following the above mentioned statutory procedure are entitled to get pensionary benefits and family pension only if there is a Scheme available with the respective Panchayats. We make it clear if any pensionary benefits including Family Pension have already been paid to the petitioners on the strength of the judgments of the Court, they shall not be recovered from them, but they are not entitled to any future payments. 20. Appeals are disposed of. Connected Civil Application also stands disposed of." 9. In view of the above, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.