JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner, who happened to be an ex-employee of the erstwhile Kalawad Nagar Panchayat, which came to be converted into Kalawad Nagarpalika and who retired on attaining the age of superannuation, has approached this Court by way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: "(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 25-7-2011 issued by the Chief Officer, Kalawad Nagarpalika at Annexure-I; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an order declaring that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for pension and further directing the respondents to confer upon the petitioner all consequential benefits with interest thereon i.e. difference of pension etc.; (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to extend the benefit of provisional pension to the petitioner w.e.f. June, 2012 onwards regularly; (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;" Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the denial of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner despite he being permitted to be absorbed in respondent No. 4 pursuant to judgment and order of learned Labour Court in Reference (L.C.D.) No. 8 of 1990 (Old No. 2 of 1985). 2. The facts in brief as could be gathered from the memo of petition deserve to be set out as under: 2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed as daily-wager in the then Kalawad Nagar Panchayat in the year 1973. The then Kalawad Nagar Panchayat was converted into Nagarpalika. The Chief Officer, Kalawad Nagarpalika issued a letter dated 20-5-2011 wherein, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Safai Kamdar and he was made permanent w.e.f. 1-1-1989 pursuant to the Award passed by the Labour Court. Thereafter, Kalawad Nagarpalika issued an Office Order dated 30-7-2011 retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31-7-2011 on reaching the age of superannuation. Thus, the petitioner has retired from service. Thereafter, Kalawad Nagarpalika issued an Office Order dated 30-7-2011 retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31-7-2011 on reaching the age of superannuation. Thus, the petitioner has retired from service. The Chief Officer, Kalawad Nagarpalika issued a letter dated 25-7-2011, whereunder after narrating facts, it was stated that he has to give a Certificate about the sanction from the competent authority and the appointment is not in the over set-up. It was also stated that on scrutiny of records, it is found that necessary sanction from the Competent Authority was not there, and accordingly, the petitioner was informed that he was in over set-up and the order of Competent Authority to put the petitioner in set up was not found in the record, and therefore, it was not possible to submit the information to the question put forward by the Collector, therefore, denied the claim of pension to the petitioner. The petitioner's claim for pension came to be rejected under order dated 25-7-2011 and being aggrieved and dissatisfied therewith, preferred this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the order impugned rejecting the claim of petitioner is incorrect, erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The said order contains reasoning, which cannot be said to be a correct reasoning for denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner was nowhere responsible for production of document, which were not available with the authority, and therefore, the petitioner could not have been denied the pension by saying that his pension claim cannot be entertained. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the Award under which the petitioner's claim for being permanent employee was accepted, and accordingly, his services came to be regularized with effect from 1-1-1989 and thereafter, till he attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner has been given the regular pay-scale and all the benefits attached to the post of sweeper. The petitioner was granted the periodical revision in pay at par with other similarly situated employees and at no point of time, he was ever treated as the employee not appointed after the concurrence from the State or an employee in addition to the regular set-up. The petitioner was granted the periodical revision in pay at par with other similarly situated employees and at no point of time, he was ever treated as the employee not appointed after the concurrence from the State or an employee in addition to the regular set-up. The petitioner's appointment or regularization with effect from 1-1-1989 was pursuant to competent Court's order, which was binding upon all the concerned and having accepted the same, without any demur, and acting upon it till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, it was not open to the respondents to turn around and deny only part of the benefits, which ought to have been naturally flowing from the factum of he being regularized from 1-1-1989. The non-availability of the set-up documents and Certification that he was well within the set-up would not militate against the petitioner in getting pensionary benefits when he being treated as regular employee with effect from 1-1-1989. 5. The petitioner's Counsel further submitted that the petitioner could not have been denied pensionary benefits on a specious plea that Municipality employees are not entitled for Government pension as they are governed by C.P.F. Scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has joined the service with Kalawad Nagar Panchayat which was all along governed by the provisions of Gujarat Panchayats Act. Therefore, when Panchayat Service Regulation do not provide for pensionary benefits and when the State is bearing the burden of pension liability of the employees of the Panchayat, merely on conversion of Kalawad Nagar Panchayat into Kalawad Nagarpalika would not render the petitioner ineligible for pension as petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Nagarpalika only after its conversion from Nagar Panchayat to Nagarpalika. The petitioner's initial appointment was with Kalawad Nagar Panchayat and absorption was in panchayat even before the Nagarpalika is existed, and thus, he would be entitled to be treated erstwhile panchayat employee, even after from conversion of panchayat into Nagarpalika, and thus, he is entitled to receive all pensionary benefits and burden is required to be borne by the State. 6. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention to Government Resolutions dated 29-9-1992 at Page-67 and 10-6-1978 at Page-78 of the petition, and submitted that in accordance therewith the persons like petitioner are entitled for pensionary benefits and burden has to be borne by the State so far as pensionary benefits are concerned. 7. The petitioner's Counsel thereafter invited Court's attention to observation made by this Court in case of Chief Officer v. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch, reported in 2011 (1) GCD 569 , in support his contention that petitioner was entitled to receive pension as a natural course of service condition. The petitioner had been regularly paying contribution in G.P.F., which was not C.P.F., as it is required to be borne in mind and the following Paragraphs would indicate that the petitioner was in fact entitled to receive the pensionary benefits, Paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9: "6. It is undisputed position that all the concerned employees were treated in the G.P.F., Scheme therefore, respective G.P.F. accounts were opened and the deduction was also made from their salary from the date on which they were made permanent and until they retired from service or their service ended on account of their death. It is also undisputed position that all such employees were not treated in C.P.F. Scheme, which is applicable to other Municipal employees and no deduction for the purpose of C.P.F. has been made by the Municipality from the salary of concerned employees. If the employee, when he is absorbed in service, is treated for all purposes in the G.P.F. Scheme for pensional benefits and not treated in the C.P.F. Scheme for lump-sum amount, and the said position continued until the person concerned reached to the age of superannuation or otherwise, would it be open to the employer or the concerned authorities to deny the pensionary benefits after retirement on the ground that the employees concerned was not eligible for pension as per the G.P.F. Scheme. In our view, if such is permitted to be entertained and accepted, it would not only be highly improper on the part of the authority, but can also be termed as atrocious action, which would be absurd on the face of it. 7. In our view, if such is permitted to be entertained and accepted, it would not only be highly improper on the part of the authority, but can also be termed as atrocious action, which would be absurd on the face of it. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however contended that the employees concerned, who were in the then panchayat service, and subsequently, continued in the Municipality, were not recruited by the regular selection process and it was submitted that it is only w.e.f. 1-1-1989 they have been granted permanency benefit. When on 1-1-1989 permanency benefits were granted, they were taken as Municipal employees and not as employees of the panchayat. Under the circumstances, they would be entitled for all benefits, which may be available to other Municipal employees. It was submitted that as per the decision of this Court in case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat v. Ramniklal Dharshi Shah reported at 2010 (1) GCD 675 , such employees who were not recruited by the regular selection process of the then Gram Panchayat, could not be termed as in service, and therefore, would not be eligible for the pensional benefits as available to other employees of the panchayat or Government service. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that if the employees were of the Municipality, there is no scheme of the Government for pensional benefits, but the scheme applicable would be C.P.F. to the employees of the Municipality. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge was guided by the resolution of the Government, which in the submission of the Municipality is not applicable, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. 8. There cannot be any different view in respect of the employees taken by this Court in Chorwad Gram Panchayat, [ 2010 (1) GCD 675 ]. However, the point which arise for consideration in the present group of matters did not arise in the said case inasmuch as if for all purposes the employees concerned were treated as in panchayat service with the scheme of the Government for pension by deduction of G.P.F., would it be open to the Government or the Municipality to deny the pensional benefits, if the employees concerned have retired from service. It is true that if one was not appointed by regular recruitment process, he may not fall in the panchayat service. It is true that if one was not appointed by regular recruitment process, he may not fall in the panchayat service. In our view, the factum of giving treatment by the Municipality and Government to all the concerned employees in the present case as member of the panchayat service and the consequent action of regular deduction of contribution of G.P.F. account that too from the inception of the service as the permanent employees until reaching to the age of superannuation or until the services came to an end, would be sufficient to decline the entertainment of such plea taken by Municipality and/or the Government as the case may be, that the employees concerned in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat, 2010 (1) GCD 675 would not be entitled for the pensional benefits. Be it noted that it is not the case of the appellant or any of the State authority that it is on account of any fraud or misrepresentation or any mischief played by the concerned employees at the relevant point of time or even thereafter they were treated as member of G.P.F. Scheme. Therefore, the question is to be examined in light of the bona fide action on the part of employee as well as the concerned officer of the employer or the Government, as the case may be. It is true that in normal circumstance, such estoppel may not operate against any statute, but it is not a mere case of considering the question of estoppel. In our view, a case of conduct of the party concerned coupled with the alteration of the position of the party concerned throughout. At any point of time, neither the Municipality or the Government has refunded the amount of contribution nor they have intimated to the employees concerned for their mistake or otherwise. After completion of the service, if such a plea is entertained or is accepted, in our view, it would result into allowing the atrocious treatment to be played by the Municipality or the Government or its Officers, which would violate Art.14 of the Constitution. 9. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily-wager or a temporary employee of the Government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. 9. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily-wager or a temporary employee of the Government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. On the contrary, as per the policy of the Government, even if a person is an ad hoc/temporary employee, after completion of requisite length of service, he is to be treated as eligible for the scheme of pension and once he is treated as eligible for the scheme of pension, and his contribution are being deducted from his salary, he would be eligible for the pension upon completion of the requisite length of service. Therefore, is no absolute bar operating upon the entitlement of the pension by the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, who are treated as for all purposes covered by the scheme of pension for the contribution from their salary and same position continued until they reached to the age of superannuation or until the end of their service." 8. The Counsel for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to subsequent decisions of this Court, based upon the decision in case of Chief Officer, [ 2011 (1) GCD 569 ], by the Division Bench, those are as under:- (i) Order dated 11-4-2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13333 of 2014; (ii) Decision reported in 2016 (0) ALJEL-HC 236193; (iii) Decision reported in 2011(0) GLHEL-HC 226169, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in the proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2013 and allied matters decided on 31-1-2013 and same was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC Nos. 15691 to 15700 of 2013 dated 16-9-2013. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that judgment and order relied upon by learned A.G.P. in case of Shardaben Jayantilal Tankaria v. State of Gujarat, rendered on 22-7-2010 in Special Civil Application No. 7078 of 2004 in case of same very Nagar Panchayat, would be of no avail to the respondents, as petitioner has made out a case qua petitioner's entitlement to seek pension from the State, and it is absolutely important to mention here that said Shardaben and two others, who had been held not eligible for receiving pension, have in fact been granted pension as could be seen from documents annexed by the Nagarpalika at Page 103 in their affidavit. They are figuring at Sr. Nos. 61, 63 and 64 in that statement. Therefore, the decision relied upon by learned A.G.P. is of no avail to petitioner to deny pensionary benefits to petitioner. 10. Learned Counsel for respondent-Nagarpalika submitted that Nagarpalika in fact cannot have any objection of granting pension to the petitioner, however, the objection of the State qua petitioner's appointment without any approval of the State may be impediment in the way of petitioner in getting benefits. The Nagarpalika did forward pension papers but Nagarpalika was called upon to issue certificate that appointment of petitioner was without set-up which could not be furnished on account of want of relevant records. In that view of the matter, the Court may pass appropriate order, but Court may not saddle Nagarpalika with burden of payment of pension to petitioner as Nagarpalika has no resources to bear the liability. 11. Counsel for the Nagarpalika further submitted that statement of employees was annexed at Page 102, which would indicate that those who were treated to be employees of erstwhile Nagar Panchayat were eligible and are also paid pension from the State and Nagarpalika is not saddle with any liability of paying pension to those employees and this statement was filed pursuant to order of Court, which would clearly indicate that employees mentioned thereunder are getting pension from the State. 12. Learned Advocate appearing for Nagarpalika submits that he is adopting the submissions of learned A.G.P. for resisting the petition so far as petitioner's claim for pension is concerned, however, he could not explain as to how and in what manner despite their being an order not grating pension to petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7078 of 2004, Shardaben and two others came to be granted pension, as could be seen from the document produced by respondent Nagarpalika at Page 102. Shri Vyas, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-Nagarpalika at this stage invited this Court's attention to affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 4 in that petition (Special Civil Application No. 7078 of 2004), more particularly Paras 4 and 5, which reads as under:- "Para-4 : I say that the true facts are that all the three petitioners were working as Tedagar in the Balmandir run by the Municipality. I say all the three employees were not recruited on the sanctioned posts nor was any prior permission obtained from the competent authority when appointed. I say all the three employees were not recruited on the sanctioned posts nor was any prior permission obtained from the competent authority when appointed. The petitioners approached the Labour Court and obtained an award in their favour to be made permanent on the basis of their favour to be made permanent on the basis of their completion of 240 days of service. I say, though the said award was accepted by the Municipality by passing a resolution they could not claim the status of employees regularly recruited on the sanctioned posts and there was only one sanctioned posts of Tedagar. All the petitioners are paid the provident fund amount due to them. The petitioners being not entitled to pension and gratuity are not paid the amounts due towards pension and provident fund though they have retired on the dates shown by them. I say that the various queries were made by the Local Fund Office through Collector, Jamnagar who in turn called upon the Municipality to supply the details regarding sanctioned set-up, option given by the employees for pension and other details required for sanction of pension and gratuity. I say that the Kalawad Municipality came into existence in 1994, and prior thereto, it was a Panchayat and every appointment made under the said Act cannot be treated as a regular appointment unless it was accompanied by an order passed under Sec. 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961. I say therefore, the claim made by the petitioners in the petition is not legal and valid. Para-5 : With reference to the various averments made, I deny that there was any kind of delay on the part of the Municipality. I say that the petitioners themselves were aware when they retired in the year 2001/2003 that they were working on the posts only under the orders of the Labour Court and their services were otherwise not made permanent under their relevant recruitment rules. I say that the Municipality had not only complied with the award of the Labour Court, but passed a resolution as was required to be done under the said award. I say that the Municipality has no other authority, but to submit all necessary orders to the Competent Authority for sanction of pension, which it had done. I say that the Municipality had not only complied with the award of the Labour Court, but passed a resolution as was required to be done under the said award. I say that the Municipality has no other authority, but to submit all necessary orders to the Competent Authority for sanction of pension, which it had done. I say, therefore, no fault can be found with the Municipality in the facts and circumstances narrated above." and submitted that the stand of Nagarpalika is very clear that Nagarpalika was not being responsible for paying the pension. 13. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that petitioner's appointment in the Nagar Panchayat was from 1-1-1989 and as per Government Resolution dated 28-11-1994, the policy, decision was taken to grant benefits to the employees only who have been appointed from 1-4-1963 to 1986 and petitioner was admittedly not appointed even in that period, and accordingly, the petitioner would naturally not entitle to receive pension from the State as claimed by petitioner. 14. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the petitioner is also not falling within the purview of Government Resolution dated 27-7-2011 and as such he would not be entitled to receive pension from the State. Counsel for the State further submitted that in fact in case of Shardaben Jayantilal Tankaria, (Spl. Civil Appli. No. 7080 of 2004), the Court did not allow the pensionary benefits to petitioners of said petition, as could be seen from the observation of Court in Paras 5 and 6, and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to receive pensionary benefits as his appointment was not sanctioned or well within the set-up or after obtaining due approval of the State, and hence, the petitioner would not be entitled to receive pension from the State. 15. Learned A.G.P. in support of her submission, pressed into service the Government Resolution of the year 1992 more particularly Clause 14 for denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 16. The Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The factual aspect of the matter emerging therefrom deserve to be set out as under in order to appreciate the controversy in light of the prevalent proposition of law. (i) The petitioner came to be initially appointed on the post of Sweeper in an organization. 16. The Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The factual aspect of the matter emerging therefrom deserve to be set out as under in order to appreciate the controversy in light of the prevalent proposition of law. (i) The petitioner came to be initially appointed on the post of Sweeper in an organization. The organization was admittedly a Nagar Panchayat governed under the provisions of Panchayat Act and Rules. (ii) The petitioner was constrained to approach the Court as despite he being entitled to receive the benefits of permanency, the same were not granted to him, hence, he had to seek reference being Reference (L.C.D.) No. 2 of 1985 (New No. 8 of 1990), which came to be disposed of on 8-1-1990. Even during pendency of Reference, and when the judgment was rendered in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-Nagar Panchayat had not been converted into Nagarpalika, so as to create any further impediment upon Nagarpalika. (iii) The petitioner was to be absorbed as permanent employee from 1-1-1989, and thereafter, only in the year 1994, Nagar Panchayat came to be converted into Nagarpalika. Petitioner's absorption stood prior to date of its conversion, and therefore, petitioner can well be said to be an employee of erstwhile Nagar Panchayat entitling to receive and seek his service condition despite their being conversion of Nagar Panchayat into Nagarpalika. (iv) The petitioner's absorption was from 1-1-1989, and thereafter, till he attained the age of superannuation i.e. on 31-7-2011, he received all the benefits attached to the post including pay-revision, which could have been granted to the petitioner. Had there been no overt clear approval by the State authorities, in this circumstances, it can well be said that petitioner's receiving the wage-revision benefits after the overt approval of the State, would render so-called non-receipt of State approval to his initial appointment or he being employee of over set-up insignificant and redundant. Had there been no overt clear approval by the State authorities, in this circumstances, it can well be said that petitioner's receiving the wage-revision benefits after the overt approval of the State, would render so-called non-receipt of State approval to his initial appointment or he being employee of over set-up insignificant and redundant. The other benefits are granted by the State like pay revision at par with other employees of the Nagarpalika and those revisions were implemented without any demur from any quarter, would not now permit the State or respondent No. 4 to turn around and say that though petitioner was given all benefits of permanency, as if he was absorbed in Nagarpalika and in fact he was absorbed in Nagar Panchayat and he was granted the periodical revision in pay, he cannot be granted pension on account of his so-called infirmity in his appointment. (v) The decision of this Court relied upon by learned A.G.P. rendered on 22-7-2010 in proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 7079 of 2010 also would not militate against the petitioner's claim, as petitioners therein have already been given the benefits from the due date, as could be seen from document annexed by Nagarpalika at Page 102, which is elaborately discussed hereinabove. (vi) The decision rendered by this Court in case of Chief Officer v. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch, 2011 (1) GCD 569 and other judgments cited at Bar by learned Counsel for the petitioner have clear proposition of law qua entitlement of such persons to receive pension. 17. Against aforesaid backdrops of factual aspect, the question arises as to whether the petitioner was rightly denied the pensionary benefits on account of so-called infirmity in his appointment, the answer has to be emphatically "NO". The petitioner cannot have been denied the pensionary benefits as the petitioner has successfully established that the petitioner belonged to erstwhile Kalawad Nagar Panchayat, which was governed by provisions of Gujarat Panchayats Act and Rules. That mere conversion of Panchayat into Nagarpalika would not render, petitioner's absorption prior to its conversion, as an impediment in the way of the petitioner in receiving pensionary benefits. 18. That mere conversion of Panchayat into Nagarpalika would not render, petitioner's absorption prior to its conversion, as an impediment in the way of the petitioner in receiving pensionary benefits. 18. The Court is unable to accept the contentions of learned A.G.P. for the State qua petitioner not being entitled to receive pension on account of his absorption being on or before 1-1-1989 and Government Resolution dated 28-11-1994 restrict the benefits to be given to those, who have absorbed prior to 1986. This in my view would be creating trite situation which this Court cannot continuance. The Court has to be mindful of the fact that petitioner's original appointment as Sweeper was in Nagar Panchayat, and thereafter, there was competent Court's order and judgment, whereunder, the petitioner came to be absorbed in the year 1989 and that also happened prior to conversion of Nagar Panchayat into Nagarpalika and as such petitioner was required to be governed thereunder. 19. Assuming for the sake of examination without holding that petitioner's initial appointment or even absorption was not approved by the State, but that in itself cannot militate against the petitioner and fact of being the same, has not been held against the petitioner at any stage after his absorption in the year 1989 till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2011. Accordingly, the State as well as Nagarpalika will have to be estopped from contending that petitioner's initial appointment was without approval. This cannot be pleaded against the petitioner on account of conduct of both, which in my view, is required to be appreciated as petitioner's cannot be denied part of benefits, which amount to arbitrary denying him the benefits of the judgment and order. The petitioner was in fact entitled to receive benefits of pay and same as of revision in pay and same has been wrongly denied to him. The decision cited at Bar in case of Chief Officer v. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch, 2011 (1) GCD 569 , also would indicate that petitioner was justified in seeking his pension as the G.P.F. was regularly deducted from his pay and Paragraphs which have been cited hereinabove while recording submissions of Shri Mehta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would help the case of the petitioner. 20. 20. The following Paragraphs from the decision would also require to be set out as under, which would indicate that case of petitioner for pension is justified. (i) Decision rendered on 11-4-2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13333 of 2014: Para – 7: "7. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Let me assume for the moment, as submitted by the learned A.G.P., that the service of the petitioner was not regular. It is not in dispute that he served from 1988 to 2013. It is not in dispute that his services were terminated and the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement in service with continuity. It is not in dispute that all throughout, he remained in the G.P.F. If that be so, it is difficult for me to accept the argument that he was not a regular employee. Apart from the above, it is not that in every case whenever a person is a daily-wager, or a temporary employee, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chief Officer v. Mohamad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch, 2011 (1) GCD 569 , observed as under; Paragraph Nos. 6 to 9....................." [As Paragraphs Nos. 6 to 9 are reproduced hereinabove, same are not reproduced herein] (ii) Decision reported in 2016 (0) ALJEL-HC-236193, Para 5 reads as under: "(5) I could have rejected this writ-application relying on the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 23-7-2009 and more particularly in view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat, 2010 (1) GCD 875. However, the decision of this Court in the case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat, 2010 (1) GCD 875, is now no longer a good law in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai v. State of Gujarat, (Civil Appeal No. 5441 of 2016, decided on 1-7-2016) reported in 2016 (12) SCC 801 . The case of the writ-applicant will have to be reconsidered in light of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above. (6) I had an occasion to consider the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai, Civil Appli. The case of the writ-applicant will have to be reconsidered in light of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above. (6) I had an occasion to consider the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai, Civil Appli. No. 5441 of 2016 decided on 1-7-2016, while deciding the Special Civil Application No. 7388 of 2002, decided on 5-8-2016. While disposing of the Special Civil Application No. 7388 of 2002, this Court observed as under: 18. The issue as regards the pension and other retiral benefits is concerned, will have to be re-examined by the authority concerned in light of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai v. State of Gujarat, Civil Appeal No. 5441 of 2016, decided on 1-7-2016 [reported in 2016 (12) SCC 801 ]. The Supreme Court has explained very exhaustively the position of law as regards the claim of Panchayat employee for pension and other benefits is concerned. 19. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court as under: 3. In terms of Gujarat Government Gazette dated 1-7-1961, the then Okha District Municipality got converted into Okha Gram and Nagar Panchayat on and w.e.f 2-2-1962. Upon such conversion, the existing staff of Municipality was allocated to Gram Panchayat and treated as part of Panchayat Service. Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') deals with Panchayat Service and various sets of Rules framed pursuant to the power conferred under the Act, deal with matters including classification of Panchayat Service and conditions of service as regards Panchayat Service..............." (iii) Decision reported in 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC-226169, Para 6 reads as under: "6. Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') deals with Panchayat Service and various sets of Rules framed pursuant to the power conferred under the Act, deal with matters including classification of Panchayat Service and conditions of service as regards Panchayat Service..............." (iii) Decision reported in 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC-226169, Para 6 reads as under: "6. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case and the judgment and order dated 3-2-2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 214 of 2011 and allied matters, indisputably, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions came to be confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench since the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the aggrieved Municipality came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, and the petitioners herein were the employees of the respondent-Municipality, who were also parties to the common award referred to hereinabove, which attained finality upto the High Court, and the common award passed by the Industrial Court in various References was never disturbed, modified or changed, and for all purposes, the petitioners employees had not only acquired rights but their rights also came to be crystallized in their favour. Besides, the similarly situated employees from the very respondent-Municipality were ordered to be paid retiral dues and benefits by the learned Single Judge, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and all the contentions which were raised there are on par with the contentions raised herein by the learned Counsels for the respondent-Municipality and the State Government and answering those contentions, the Division Bench in Paragraph 6 onwards held as under: Paragraph Nos. 6 to 9. ...................." [As Paragraphs Nos. 6 to 9 are reproduced hereinabove, same are not reproduced herein.] It is to be noted that aforesaid decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3969 to of 2011 and allied matters, has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 21-1-2013 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2013 and allied matter. Against which, the State of Gujarat has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C.C. Nos. 15691 to 15700 of 2013 and same was dismissed vide order dated 16-9-2013. 21. Against which, the State of Gujarat has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C.C. Nos. 15691 to 15700 of 2013 and same was dismissed vide order dated 16-9-2013. 21. In view of aforesaid observation, the Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to receive his pension from the date he attained the age of superannuation, and accordingly, he is required to be granted the same. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to accord the pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement and be continued to pay the same on same basis. The pensionary benefits shall be calculated and paid as early as possible preferably within period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the petition is allowed to aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. No costs. Direct Service permitted.