ORDER : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed against judgment and order dated 2.7.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.20030 of 2018. 2. The background of the main petition was that the respondent No.5 herein – original petitioner, was appointed on a temporary basis under the then Kodinar Nagar Panchayat on 20.12.1996. With effect from 1.1.1997, he was appointed to the post of a Sanitary Inspector. This post came to be sanctioned by the Director of Municipalities on 28.6.2005. The Kodinar Nagar Panchayat was later on converted into Nagarpalika, as a result of which the appellant – Nagarpalika, passed an order on 22.9.2009 appointing the respondent No.5 herein – original petitioner, to the post of Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The Nagarpalika regularly paid him a salary, from which amount was deducted towards the General Provident Fund, in General Provident Fund Account No.84. By the efflux of time, the respondent No.5 herein attained the age of superannuation. As a result of this, on 30.4.2018 the appellant passed an order retiring the respondent No.5 from services. On 10.9.2018, the respondent No.5 herein submitted a representation requesting the extension of pensionary benefits to him since other similarly situated persons have also been given the same benefits. However, it appears that on 26.9.2018, a decision was taken that respondent No.5 herein – original petitioner, is not entitled to the pension. On 10.9.2018, the respondent No.5 herein submitted a representation requesting the extension of pensionary benefits to him since other similarly situated persons have also been given the same benefits. However, it appears that on 26.9.2018, a decision was taken that respondent No.5 herein – original petitioner, is not entitled to the pension. As a result of this, he has approached this Court by way of the aforesaid petition, seeking the following reliefs : “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application; B. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.9.2018 at Ann.G; C. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get pensionary benefits and further directing the respondents to pay arrears of the pension with interest thereon; D. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to give provisional pension to the petitioner immediately; E. Be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2.1 The said petition came for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who, after hearing all the parties to the proceedings, has allowed the petition. The learned Single Judge has held that respondent No.5 herein is entitled to receive the pension and all such benefits. Accordingly, consequential directions have been issued for making such payment / benefit. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Shri H.J. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – Nagarpalika, has contended that in view of the fact that the original Nagar Panchayat, prior to its conversion, was not entitled to appoint the employee. As a result of this, the respondent No.5 herein was originally an employee of Panchayat and is not entitled to receive the pensionary benefits. It has been contended that though the learned Single Judges’ attention was specifically drawn to decisions delivered on this issue, the same has not been observed in its true perspective, thus the petition came to be allowed. On the contrary, the present appellant has placed reliance, has not been properly construed. It has been contended that though the learned Single Judges’ attention was specifically drawn to decisions delivered on this issue, the same has not been observed in its true perspective, thus the petition came to be allowed. On the contrary, the present appellant has placed reliance, has not been properly construed. The learned counsel has further contended that there is a distinction between services under the Panchayat and those under the Nagarpalika. The Nagar Panchayat made the appointment in the absence of any authority and the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in not considering such issue. The learned counsel has submitted that reliance has been placed on decisions where the circumstances and facts are altogether different. Hence, an error has been committed while arriving at the conclusion where no circumstances should allow, in the interest of justice. The learned counsel has further submitted that no independent reasoning was assigned by the learned Single Judge in coming to this conclusion. As a result of this, the order in question deserves to be corrected. No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the material on record, we have noticed the chronology of events mentioned in the order in question, where the dates are not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. From the said dates, it appears that the Kodinar Nagar Panchayat was converted into Nagarpalika and upon absorption of this appellant in the Nagarpalika, a specific order was passed on 22.9.2009 appointing the respondent No.5 herein to the post of Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1997. On account of this, the learned Single Judge appears to have been rightly persuaded to extend the benefit to the respondent No.5 herein. We have also found from the order, which is not disputed by the appellant, that in an identical situation in the Jamjodhpur Nagarpalika, this Court was pleased to extend such benefits in a decision delivered on 11.4.2016 in Special Civil Application No.13333 of 2014. Additionally, this very issue has been examined right upto the Apex Court. After considering such situation and the observations of the Apex Court and after narrating the same, a conclusion has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge in extending the benefits. We see no reason to interfere, more particularly when the said decisions have, undisputedly, been considered by the learned Single Judge. After considering such situation and the observations of the Apex Court and after narrating the same, a conclusion has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge in extending the benefits. We see no reason to interfere, more particularly when the said decisions have, undisputedly, been considered by the learned Single Judge. We deem it proper to reproduce the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge on this issue, contained in Para 4.1 to 6. “4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that his plea for grant of pension is covered by decision in Una Nagar Palika vs. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana and another [2018 (11) SCALE 364]. When confronted with the law laid down in the said decision, learned Assistant Government Pleader was at her receiving end and could not dispute the position of law emanating from the said decision. Similarly, learned advocate for the respondent Municipality also submitted that the decision of the Supreme Curt in Una Nagar Palika (supra) would entitle the petitioner to the relief claimed for. 5. In Una Nagar Palika (supra), the supreme court held, “In our considered opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the question involved in these appeals is covered by the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Chief officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others [ 2011 (1) GCD 569 (Gujarat) (DB)] which was upheld by this Court by order dated 16.9.2013 and thus attained finality. (para 19) 5.1 It was further observed, “The Division Bench was of the view and, in our view, rightly that distinction sought to be made between the two group of employees, namely one coming from the Panchayat and then becoming the Municipal employees and the other directly becoming the Municipal employees was held to be of no significance because the appellant made the respondents members of the GPF contributions and went on to deduct regular contribution from their salary till the date of their retirement.” (para 23) 5.2 Thus the supreme court in Una Nagar Palika (supra) relied on the decision of this court in Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch (supra) to state that it had attained finality. It was held that the law laid down therein was required to be given effect to in relation to the Municipal Employee concerned as they were eligible and entitled to claim the pension and pensionary benefits. 6. It was held that the law laid down therein was required to be given effect to in relation to the Municipal Employee concerned as they were eligible and entitled to claim the pension and pensionary benefits. 6. The respondent in Una Nagar Palika (supra) was similarly situated. The supreme court directed the appellant Municipality to finalise the pension in favour of the said respondent employee and release the amount of pension.” 5. Additionally, the learned counsel has emphasized a circular dated 28.11.1994. Even the Supreme Court has, in a decision reported in (2018) 11 SCALE 369, considered the effect of the said circular and observed in Para 26 and 27 as under : “26. Learned counsel for the appellant (Municipality), however, placed reliance on one State Government’s Circular dated 28.11.1994 (Annexure P) and contended that in the light of this circular, the respondents are neither eligible and nor entitled to claim the benefit of pension. We find no merit in this submission. 27. Firstly, we find that it was not filed before the High Court (writ court / Division Bench); secondly, the writ court and the Division Bench did not refer it to; thirdly, in any event, it is of no significance to decide the present controversy.” (emphasis supplied) 5.1 By referring to the aforesaid paragraphs, we are of the opinion that since this decision in its entirety has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, no error is visible in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the aforesaid situation, especially when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to point out any distinguishable material nor could he project any better submission in an appellate jurisdiction, we see no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge nor would like to substitute the view. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. 7. Consequently, connected civil application also stands disposed of.