JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioner widow, by way of present petition, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order directing the respondents to pay arrears of pension from the date of death of her husband i.e. 01.02.1990 and further to direct the respondents to pay regular pension to the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 along with appropriate rate of interest. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: "2.1 The husband of the petitioner Shri Saya Amin Mamad Raysi joined the services in the office of the respondent No. 2 on 01.01.1976 as daily wager. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that after serving for about nine years continuously he was confirmed as work charge labour with effect from 21.02.1985 and he was getting salary in the grade of Rs. 196-232 as work charge employee and thereafter he was paid the revised salary from time to time. The first revision in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-E.B.-14-940 was paid with effect from 01.01.1986 and his salary was fixed at Rs. 774/- and thereafter on 01.02.1986 his salary was increased to Rs. 786/- and thereafter on 01.02.1987 the same was increased to Rs. 798/- and again on 01.02.1989 his salary was increased to Rs. 810/- and lastly on 01.02.1989 his salary was increased to Rs. 822/-. The husband of the petitioner expired while he was in service on 31.01.1990. 2.3 According to the petitioner, after the death of husband of the petitioner, the respondents have not cared to pay an amount of gratuity to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Gratuity Application No. 1 of 1994 before the learned Controlling Authority for payment of Gratuity, Gandhidham, District Kutch. The said application was allowed by the learned Controlling Authority vide its order dated 20.07.1994 holding that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity of Rs. 9,159/- along with 10% simple interest and cost of Rs. 250/-. In the said order it was held that the deceased had worked continuously for 14 years and 1 month. The respondents have not preferred any appeal against the said order and the said amount of gratuity is already paid to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the respondents to give benefit of pension. 250/-. In the said order it was held that the deceased had worked continuously for 14 years and 1 month. The respondents have not preferred any appeal against the said order and the said amount of gratuity is already paid to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the respondents to give benefit of pension. The respondent No. 2-Executive Engineer has proposed and recommended the case of the petitioner to the office of the respondent No. 3 for grant of pension taking into consideration the 14 years service rendered by the husband of the petitioner in view of the Government Policy as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authority for grant of pension, and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of filing present petition." 3. Learned advocate Mr. C.S. Mohanan for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner after his initial appointment on 01.01.1976 as daily wager continuously served under the respondents and on completion of 9 years service he was confirmed as work charge labour with effect from 21.02.1985 in the grade of Rs. 196-232. Thereafter from time to time he had been given benefit of pay revision. It is submitted that unfortunately on 31.01.1990 the husband of the petitioner died while he was in service as work charge labour. It is further submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get pension. The amount of gratuity was also not paid to the petitioner, and therefore, she moved an application before the learned Controlling Authority and her application was considered and benefit of gratuity along with 10% simple interest and cost was ordered to be paid. It is also submitted that the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the said order. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mohanan has also pointed out that in the said order of learned Controlling Authority, the learned Controlling Authority has held that the deceased employee had continuously worked for 14 years and 1 month. It is submitted that the fact regarding the length of service is not disputed and it is a part of Government record, the benefit accrued under the Government Resolution is required to be extended to the petitioner after the death of the her husband on 31.01.1990. It is submitted that the fact regarding the length of service is not disputed and it is a part of Government record, the benefit accrued under the Government Resolution is required to be extended to the petitioner after the death of the her husband on 31.01.1990. However, till date the said benefit has not been extended to the poor widow lady and that is why she is compelled to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Mohanan submits that the facts of the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court given in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai vs. Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, R & B Department & Another, reported in 1998 (2) GLH 1. While referring to Para 9 of the said judgment, learned advocate Mr. Mohanan vehemently submitted that once the Government has made it clear that those who have completed ten years of service as daily rated workman are to be deemed permanent with effect from and after 17.10.1988 and are entitled to various benefits on that basis including pension and thereafter as provided by the resolution dated 30.5.1989 that the continuous service for the purposes of pension, made available to employees under resolution dated 17.10.1988, is to be counted with effect from the date of entry in the service provided it can be continuous within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, thus making it clear that once a daily rated workman is treated to be permanent under the resolution dated 17.10.1988 his entire continuous service from the date of entry until he retires including his services rendered prior to the date of his regularisation is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing pension or making pension available to such employee. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mohanan submits that in the instant case on completion of 9 years service as daily wage labour, the husband of the petitioner was conferred the status of work charge labour on 21.02.1985 and placed him in regular pay scale and increments were also released from time to time. Even the revision in the pay scale which has taken place from time to time was also given to the husband of the petitioner. Even the revision in the pay scale which has taken place from time to time was also given to the husband of the petitioner. Thus, the fact regarding grant of status of work charge labour and making payment of regular pay scale with increments is also admitted position as is emerging from the record. It is further submitted that the decision in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai vs. Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, R & B Department & Another, reported in 1998 (2) GLH 1, is consistently followed by this Court in its various decisions such as in the case of Devubha Tejubha vs. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in 2001 (1) GCD 784 (Guj) and in the case of Govindbhai Madhabhai Vaghela vs. Director, Pension and P.F. & Another, reported in 2004 (1) GLH 129 . 7. Over and above the aforesaid case laws, learned advocate Mr. Mohanan has also referred to some of the relevant Rules of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, such as Rule 184, Rule 185 along with Note 2, Rule 248 and Rule 278. It is submitted that the aforesaid Rules position are also discussed in the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai (Supra). 8. Learned advocate Mr. Mohanan, to make his case more clear, submits that the respondents have tried to create confusion by producing Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which is applicable to the daily rated semi skilled workers. The respondent State Government has issued two different Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 with respect to daily rated labour and daily rated semi skilled worker, but these two Government Resolutions are meant for different categories. Learned advocate Mr. Mohanan submits that the case of the present petitioner falls within the criteria and parameter prescribed in the Government Resolution No. WCE/1588/5/1/G/2 dated 17.10.1988, applicable to daily rated labours, produced at page 35 in the petition. It is submitted that the said Government Resolution is applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is required to be given benefit under the said Government Resolution, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai (Supra). It is submitted that another Government Resolution bearing No. WCE/1588/5/3/G/2 dated 17.10.1988, is applicable to daily rated semi skilled worker, whereas the Government Resolution bearing No. WCE/1588/5/1/G/2 dated 17.10.1988, is with respect to daily rated labour. 9. It is submitted that another Government Resolution bearing No. WCE/1588/5/3/G/2 dated 17.10.1988, is applicable to daily rated semi skilled worker, whereas the Government Resolution bearing No. WCE/1588/5/1/G/2 dated 17.10.1988, is with respect to daily rated labour. 9. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner widow after death of her husband on 31.01.1990 is struggling for getting her legitimate dues as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 referred herein above, but since there is no positive response from the respondents, she had no other option but to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance, and therefore, necessary direction may be issued to the respondents to pay the arrears of pension forthwith along with appropriate rate of interest as may be deemed fit and proper by this Court. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Robin Mogera appearing for the respondents has opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the pension as claimed by her under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In this Context, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon some averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3 and emphasis was put on the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply vide Annexure-R-3. It is submitted that since the husband of the petitioner has not completed continuous 10 years of service as work charge labour, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of pension under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply vide Annexure-R-3. 11. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the Government has issued two Resolutions on 17.10.1988 for two categories of workers. One Resolution, which is annexed to the petition at Page 35 bearing No. WCE/1588/5/1/G/2, is in respect of daily rated labour, whereas the another Resolution bearing No. WCE/1588/5/3/G/2 dated 17.10.1988, referred to and relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is meant for daily rated semi skilled worker. 12. In the instant case the husband of the petitioner was engaged as daily wager by the respondents with effect from 01.01.1976 and continuously for a period of about 9 years he has rendered service in that capacity. Thereafter he was given status of work charge labour on 21.02.1985 and since than he was getting regular pay scale and increments were also released from time to time. Thereafter he was given status of work charge labour on 21.02.1985 and since than he was getting regular pay scale and increments were also released from time to time. It also appears that the effect of revision of pay scale was also given to the deceased husband of the petitioner. Thus, it becomes clear that the husband of the petitioner is falling within the scope of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which is annexed to the petition at Page 35 bearing No. WCE/1588/5/1/G/2. As per the said Government Resolution on completion of 10 years service, the daily wager employee has been conferred the status of work charge labour and placed in regular pay scale, meaning thereby permanent status is given to employee, who has completed 10 years service. It further appears that the husband of the petitioner died on 31.01.1990 while he was in service as work charge labour, and therefore, the petitioner widow represented her case for getting benefit of pension and the concerned Executive Engineer has also proposed to the higher authority with his recommendation for grant of pension in view of the Government Resolution bearing No. WCE/1588/5/1/G/2 dated 17.10.1988. However, the respondent State Government has not considered the said request and denied the benefit of pension to the petitioner whose husband has served as daily wager and thereafter as work charge labour continuously for a period of about 14 years. 13. I have perused the decision cited by the learned advocate Mr. Mohanan, given in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai (Supra). Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below for ready reference: "9. In the resolution dated 17.10.1988, it has been envisaged that those workman who as on 1.10.1988 or thereafter completes ten years of continuous service to be counted in accordance with provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be deemed to be permanent and amongst other benefits conferred on being treated as permanent their age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years and they were made entitled for pensionary benefit. By yet another resolution dated 30.5.1989 (Annexure E), in which a specific query was raised at item No (6) with reference to resolution dated 17.10.1988, about the calculation of period of qualifying service for the purpose of entitlement to pension in connection with the pensionary benefits made available to those daily wagers who are deemed to be permanent on completion of ten years of service and it was specifically made clear that within the meaning of resolution dated 17.10.1988, the service which is to be counted is that which can be said as continuous within the meaning of Section 25B with effect from the date of entry in the service is duty counted for the purpose of pension and pension has to be accordingly determined. This does not say that qualifying service is to be counted with effect from date of becoming permanent. This leaves no room of doubt that the resolution dated 17.10.1988 along with clarification issued on the various aspects of it vide resolution dated 30.5.1989 is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 248 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 which provide that Government has not only power by general or special order to permit service other than pensionable service, for performing which a Government servant is paid from State revenues or from a local fund, to be treated as duty counting for pension and in issuing such an order Government is to specify the method by which the amount of duty shall be calculated for the purpose of pension. Once the Government has made it clear that those who have completed ten years of service as daily rated workman are to be deemed permanent with effect from and after 17.10.1988 and are entitled to various benefits on that basis including pension and thereafter has provided by the resolution dated 30.5.1989 that the continuous service for the purposes of pension, made available to employees under resolution dated 17.10.1988, is to be counted with effect from the date of entry in the service provided it can be continuous within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Act, thus making it clear that once a daily rated workman is treated to be permanent under the resolution dated 17.10.1988 his entire continuous service from the date of entry until he retires including his services rendered prior to the date of his regularisation is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing pension or making pension available to such retired employee." 14. The ratio laid down in the above referred judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case. It also appears that the said ratio is consistently followed by this Court in the case of Devubha Tejubha vs. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in 2001 (1) GCD 784 (Guj) and in the case of Govindbhai Madhabhai Vaghela vs. Director, Pension and P.F. & Another, reported in 2004 (1) GLH 129 . 15. The relevant Rules position as enumerated in the Bombay Civil Services Rule, 1959, are also relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case, which are reproduced herein-below: "184. Unless in any case it be otherwise expressly provided in these rules, an authority competent to grant a pension may sanction the grant of any pension admissible under these rules to any Government servant who is borne on its establishment. 185. In any case in which pension is not admissible under any specific provision of these rules, Government may sanction the grant of a pension, which shall not save, in the most exceptional circumstances, exceeds Rs. 40 a month, or of a gratuity not exceeding the equivalent calculated in accordance with the table prescribed under Rule 320-A of the value of such a pension, if the grant is not inconsistent with the general spirit of these rules. Note 2 of Rule 185. Pension sanctioned under this rule need not be given any special name. 40 a month, or of a gratuity not exceeding the equivalent calculated in accordance with the table prescribed under Rule 320-A of the value of such a pension, if the grant is not inconsistent with the general spirit of these rules. Note 2 of Rule 185. Pension sanctioned under this rule need not be given any special name. They may be styled as "Invalid", "Retiring", "Superannuation" or "Extraordinary", in accordance with the circumstances of each case. Such Pensions should be borne by Government that sanctioned the pension. 248. Government may be general or special order permit service other than pensionable service, for performing which a Government servant is paid from State revenues or from a local fund, to be treated as duty counting for pension. In issuing such an order Government shall specify the method by which the amount of duty shall be calculated and may impose any condition which it thinks fit. 278. Unless in any case it be otherwise expressly provided in the section, the amount of a Government servant's pension is fixed by reference to the number of completed years of duty which counts for pension under the provisions of these rules and to the amount of his pensionable pay." 16. The aforesaid Rules are also considered in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai (Supra). Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual as well as legal position emerging from the material on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner widow is eligible and entitled to get family pension as also arrears of pension with effect from 31.01.1990 along with 12% simple interest from the date of filing of this petition i.e. from 02.03.2004. 17. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fix family pension payable to the petitioner and pay the arrears of pension to her with effect from 31.01.1990 along with 12% simple interest from the date of filing of this petition i.e. from 02.03.2004, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. 18. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.