JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction directing the respondent-authorities to extend her the benefit of pension. 2. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 08.03.1999 and the same was rejected vide communication dated 17.07.2000. By an another application dated 29.06.2001, the petitioner again requested the respondent authorities to grant him compassionate appointment in Class-II service, since he had cleared the SSC and Typing exam. However, the same was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for the same vide application dated 13.09.2002 and vide communication dated 01.07.2003, the respondent-department accepted the same and accordingly, granted permission to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2004 on ad hoc basis for a period of 5 years on the post of Typist. 3. After completion of 5 years of service as a Typist, the petitioner was regularly appointed vide order dated 11.09.2009 in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- and on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014, the petitioner retired from service. 4. Since the petitioner was not paid any retiral benefits or pension, she has approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities in delaying his appointment to the post of Typist. He has submitted that by the communication dated 18.07.2003, the Director of Government Printing Press, Gandhinagar, requested the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board to pass appropriate orders appointing her on a Class-III post, however, the same was decided after a period of six months and vide communication dated 13.01.2004, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. He has submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis on the post of Typist on fix pay cannot be ignored for the purpose of conferring the benefit of pension. He has submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis on the post of Typist on fix pay cannot be ignored for the purpose of conferring the benefit of pension. He has also submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017 issued by the State, the service rendered by a Class-III or IV employee on 5 years fixed pay basis is required to be considered for the purpose of pension and hence, if the 5 years' service rendered by the petitioner on fixed pay on ad hoc basis is added, the petitioner would be completing 10 years of service, which would entitle her for pensionary benefits. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4390 . Thus, he has submitted that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner is required to be deprecated and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any retirement benefit as the initial period of 5 years of service rendered by her as ad hoc cannot be considered as pensionable service. He has submitted that the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 11.09.2009 and she reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014 and hence, she will not be entitled to pension as the qualifying service for claiming pension is 10 years. He has also submitted that the only period which can be counted is from 2009 to 2014, and the same does not meet the requirement of qualifying service of 10 years and hence, she would not be entitled to pension. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. The petitioner is denied the benefit of pension since the respondent authorities have ignored her 5 years of service rendered by her on fixed pay. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2004 on ad hoc basis as Typist on the fixed pay of Rs. 2500/- for a period of 5 years. Upon completion of satisfactory service of 5 years, the petitioner was regularized and she was placed in the regular pay-scale on 11.09.2009. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2004 on ad hoc basis as Typist on the fixed pay of Rs. 2500/- for a period of 5 years. Upon completion of satisfactory service of 5 years, the petitioner was regularized and she was placed in the regular pay-scale on 11.09.2009. Thereafter, on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014, she retired from service. The respondent authorities are calculating the period from 11.09.2009 to 31.10.2014 only as regular service by ignoring her past service which comes to less than 10 years. It is the case of the respondents that for being eligible for pension minimum 10 years regular service is required, hence she is not entitled for pension. 9. Thus, the respondents are denying the pension to the petitioner by ignoring her earlier service rendered as ad hoc from 2004 to 2009. 10. It is pertinent to note that by the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017, the State Government promulgated that the service rendered by Class-III and IV employees on fixed pay basis for 5 years shall be considered for the purpose of promotion, seniority, higher pay-scale and also for retiral benefits. A specific proviso is made in this regard in para-2 of the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017. Thus, in view of the policy of the State Government, the period rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis on fixed pay for 5 years cannot be ignored for the purpose of pension in light of the aforesaid policy. 11. At this stage, it would be relevant to incorporate the provisions of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules), which read as under: "25. Qualifying Service : Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government employee, means and includes- (i) all service including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous but it shall not include- (a) service in non-pensionable establishment, (b) service paid from contingences, (c) service rendered in daily rated establishment, (d) actual periods of break in service if any, between spell of service, (e) service prior to resignation, removal or dismissal, (f) service as an apprentice, (g) service on fixed pay basis, and (h) service on contract basis. (ii) all service rendered in work charged establishment provided that the total service put in, as such is five years or more, (iii) foreign service, (iv) vacation taken by Government employee in vacation department, (v) all periods of leave including extraordinary leave upto a maximum of thirty six months during entire service, (vi) addition to qualifying service admissible under rule-37, (vii) services rendered as Kotwal by a Government employee after regular appointment in the regular time scale. (viii) services rendered as full time attendant by a Government employee before his regular appointment in class IV service, and (ix) services rendered under Central Government/Central Government Autonomous bodies having pension scheme, by a Government employee who is absorbed in Government. (x) Pensionable service rendered by an employee in a grant-in-aid institution the pension liability in respect of which is borne by the Government to the extent as may be ordered by the Government from time to time." Rule 25 of the Rules stipulates that all service, including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous shall be considered as qualifying service except the service provided from clause (a) to (h). Sub Rule (viii) of Rule 25 of the Rules provides that the services rendered as full time attendant by a Government employee before his appointment as Class-IV employee shall be counted as qualifying service. 12. In the present case, the petitioner was placed in a regular pay-scale vide order dated 11.09.2009 and hence, her earlier ad hoc service cannot be ignored. The case of the petitioner stands on better traction than those Class-IV employees as mentioned in the Rule (viii) of Rule 25 of the Rules, since the petitioner was a Class-III employee and the aforesaid rule stipulates about considering the period rendered by a Class-IV employees as a full time attendant before his regular appointment is required to be counted towards qualifying service. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) has observed thus: "30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefited by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment. 31. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there is a provision to count service spent on work charged, contingencies or non pensionable service, in case, a person has rendered such service in a given between period of two temporary appointments in the pensionable establishment or has rendered such service in the interregnum two periods of temporary and permanent employment. The work-charged service can be counted as qualifying service for pension in the aforesaid exigencies." The Supreme Court has observed that period spent by the employees in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service and thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The Supreme Court has also observed that the State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work- charged establishment. 14. Thus, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on two counts (1) she is not granted any regular salary and she is appointed on ad hoc basis on fixed wages and (2) thereafter she is also denied the pensionary benefits for the aforesaid period. The State Authorities are benefitted by her service and it is not the case that she was appointed as a back door entry. The State Authorities are benefitted by her service and it is not the case that she was appointed as a back door entry. The respondent department, in which she was serving is also a pensionable establishment. Once the service of the petitioner has been regularized, her earlier service cannot be ignored for the purpose of pension, as the continuity of service is counted from the date of initial appointment not from the date, she is placed in the regular pay scale. 15. Under the circumstances and looking to the facts of the case, the action of the respondent- authorities denying the benefits of pension is required to be deprecated. The respondents are hereby directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by considering her total service from 18.08.2004 till she retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014. Her pension shall be fixed accordingly. Necessary orders in terms of the directions of this Court shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. 16. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.