JUDGMENT : 1. Since the common issues are involved in this group of petitions, the same are heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment and order. 2. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. All the petitioners and the deceased employees, who are represented by the legal heirs, have been appointed on the post of Sweeper (Class-IV) employees in the respondent Nagar Panchayat before the year 1967. 4. The entire issue with regard to the payment of pension and retirement benefits hinges on the interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2016) 12 SCC 801 . It is pertinent to note that in the case before the Supreme Court, the very same Panchayat i.e. Okha Gram was the party respondent and the issue also pertains to conferring of pension in cases of Class-IV employees who are appointed prior to 1967. The year 1967 would be very relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the present writ petitions, since as per the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which came into force, the recruitment of employees of Nagarpalika was required to be done in terms of Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. 5. The petitioners have retired after rendering almost more than 30 years and in some cases more than 39 years of service and are denied the benefits of pension and hence, they are constrained to file this writ petitions, after decision was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). 6. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners cannot be discriminated and their pension cannot be denied only because it is the case of the respondent authorities that such employees were not appointed in accordance with the Rules of 1967. He has submitted that the State authorities in fact should have extended the benefits of pension to the present petitioners as they are similarly situated employee who was before the Supreme Court. He has submitted that the State authorities in fact should have extended the benefits of pension to the present petitioners as they are similarly situated employee who was before the Supreme Court. Further, reliance is also placed by learned advocate Mr.Joshi on the Circular dated 26.02.2008 issued by the Government of Gujarat, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development, whereby all the District Development Officers of the State were ordered to initiate procedure to regularise the service of the employees who are appointed from 01.04.1963 to 05.06.1984. It is submitted that the exercise was required to be undertaken in case of the present petitioners also, but they were not regularized in service, which has resulted into the denial of pension. It is submitted by him that the cut-off date 05.06.1984 is already provided in the Circular, which indicates that in irregular appointment made after that date and in those cases the entire burden would be borne by the Gram Panchayat or the Nagar Panchayat and the concerned officers who make such appointments would be held responsible for the same. He has submitted that the aforesaid Circular is also referred by the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) and the petitioners, who are similarly situated should be extended the benefits of resolution. 7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the District Development Officer has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench dated 24.12.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.81 of 2020. He has submitted that the Division Bench, after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) and various other judgments and after examination of the concerned Rules, has held that the employees who are not appointed on regular sanctioned posts, are not entitled for any retirement benefits for pension. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioners were irregularly appointed by the Gram Panchayat by passing resolutions, hence the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) cannot be extended to such employees. 8. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioners were irregularly appointed by the Gram Panchayat by passing resolutions, hence the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) cannot be extended to such employees. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mehta, while adopting the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr.Munshaw and placing reliance on the affidavit-in-reply has submitted that in fact, there is no record available with the State with regard to the appointments of the petitioners, since the same is lying with the Okha Municipality. It is submitted by him that the appointments of the petitioners are backdoor entry, hence they cannot be conferred the benefits of pension. It is further submitted that no approval was sought from the District Development Officer, Jamnagar District Panchayat by any competent State authority before appointing the petitioners and hence, they are not entitled to such benefits. 9. Learned advocate Mr.Kakad, appearing for the Okha Municipality has submitted that on the instructions received by him, it has been informed that the statement made in the affidavit in paragraph No.8 is incorrect, since all the available records were handed over to the respondent-Taluka Development Officer on 21.12.2021 and the same is lying with the Taluka Devlopment Officer. In support of his submission, he has placed a copy of the letter dated 21.12.2021, which is ordered to be taken on record. 10. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 11. All the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties are ad idem that the issue can be examined in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). The Supreme Court, while examining the case for the entitlement of the pension of the employees serving in the very same respondent Nagar Panchayat, after examining the provisions of Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 read with Rule 2(h), Item-III, Part-III of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 and Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, more particularly Rules 2(h) thereof has observed thus: “10. Item III of aforementioned Part III deals with “Inferior Panchayat Service” under Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat which term is defined inter alia in Rule 2(h) of the 1977 Rules, as under: “2(h) “Superior Panchayat Service” and “Inferior Panchayat Service” means respectively the Superior Panchayat Service and the Inferior Panchayat Service as constituted respectively by clause (a) and clause (d) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967.” 11. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 deals with Panchayat Service and stipulates that it shall consist of two classes, namely, “Superior Panchayat Service” and “Inferior Panchayat Service”. 12. The statutory provisions as mentioned above and the clear assertion by Respondent No.5 in his affidavit in reply, shows that in the year 1964 when deceased Vela Keshav came to be appointed, there were no rules governing the appointment in question. The rules regulating ‘Superior Panchayat Service’ and ‘Infereior Panchayat Service’ in the form of Gram Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 came on the statute book in the year 1967. Going by the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967, Gram Panchayat is the appropriate authority in respect of posts included in the Local Cadre. Thus, we do not find any infraction in the appointment of Vela Keshav, who was appointed pursuant to a resolution passed by Panchayat. Nothing has been pointed out how Gram Panchayat was not competent to make such appointment or that at the relevant time in question the power to make appointments was vested in an authority other than Gram Panchayat or that there was any separate modality or procedure prescribed for effecting such an appointment. 13. As detailed in the affidavit in reply on behalf of Respondent No.5, the deceased Vela Keshav was holding the post within the sanctioned set up of Safai Kamdars and that he was a full time employee getting regular salary. The deceased Vela Keshav had put in 33 years of service and died in harness. At no stage, while he was in service any objection or even a doubt was raised that he was not validly appointed. The deceased Vela Keshav had put in 33 years of service and died in harness. At no stage, while he was in service any objection or even a doubt was raised that he was not validly appointed. In our view, Vela Keshav must be held to be one who was regularly appointed and we do not find any infirmity or illegality in his appointment so as to disentitle the family of the benefits of family pension and gratuity. 14. At this stage, Circular dated 26.02.2008 issued by Government of Gujarat, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development on 26.02.2008, which was placed on record by way of Additional Documents, may be adverted to. This Circular after considering cases of those who were appointed between 1.04.1963 and 5.05.1984, stated as under: “It is, therefore, informed to all the District Development Officers to initiate proceedings in accordance with the instructions given vide letters cited at preamble for regularizing services of the employees appointed/recruited under the converted gram/nagar panchayats during the period from 1.4.1963 to 10.7.1978 and 10.07.1978 to 5.06.1984 and to decide their other service related matters accordingly. Further, it is also hereby informed to submit proposal of posts of remaining employees as per item no.1 of letter at preamble 1 who have been recruited/appointed promoted during the period from 10.07.1978 to 5.06.1984 and on other aspects of the aforesaid letters also, if guidance/approval is required, DDO shall have to submit proposal through Development Officer’s office within six months after examining service record of each employee with their clear opinion.” 15. In the totality of circumstances, we find that the appellant cannot be denied the benefits in question. We, therefore allow this appeal and set aside the judgments and orders rendered by the Single Judge and the Division Bench and allow Special Civil Application No.354 of 2004. We direct the respondents to pay to the appellant all the arrears of pensionary benefits and gratuity with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum within two months from the date of this Judgment. 16. In appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.8896 of 2010, the appellant was appointed as a Peon on 4.4.1964 and in due course of time was promoted to the post of Sanitary Mukadam and later to the post of Octroi Clerk. 16. In appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.8896 of 2010, the appellant was appointed as a Peon on 4.4.1964 and in due course of time was promoted to the post of Sanitary Mukadam and later to the post of Octroi Clerk. He retired in the year 2001 after having put in 37 years of service and all through he was paid all the benefits including those under 4th Pay Commission as a regular employee would receive. His case was dealt with on the strength of the Judgment in the lead matter by the High Court and since we have set aside the view taken by the High Court in the lead matter, this appeal also deserves to be allowed. While condoning the delay and allowing the appeal, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of pensionary benefits and the amount of gratuity to the appellant along and gratuity with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum within two months from the date of this Judgment. 17. In appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.9756 of 2011, the deceased husband of the present appellant was appointed as Sanitary Inspector by Okha Gram Panchayat on 14.12.1964 and the said appointment was later confirmed by Development Commissioner vide order dated 5.4.1973. In accordance with the view taken by us in the lead matter, this appeal also deserves to be allowed. Allowing the appeal, we direct the respondents to pay to the appellant all the arrears of family pension and the amount of gratuity with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum within two months from the date of this Judgment. 18. In appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.1305 of 2011 the appellant, 55 per cent physically handicapped, was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk on 13.10.1969 and retired from service in the year 2001. It is true that his appointment was after the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967 and other set of Rules came into force. But nothing has been placed on record indicating any prevalent procedure which was allegedly infracted or any reason why his appointment could be termed as illegal or invalid. All through his service till he retired, he was paid all the emoluments and salary like any regular employee. We see no reason why the appellant could be denied the pensionary benefits and gratuity. All through his service till he retired, he was paid all the emoluments and salary like any regular employee. We see no reason why the appellant could be denied the pensionary benefits and gratuity. We allow this appeal and direct the respondent to pay to the appellant family pension and the amount of gratuity with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum within two months from the date of this Judgment.” 12. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the concerned appellant – Harijan Paniben Dudabhai, who was appointed prior to the promulgation of 1967 of the Rules, which deals with the appointment of Superior Panchayat Service and Inferior Panchayat service, shall be conferred the benefit of pension. It is interesting to note that in paragraph No.18, while dealing with one employee i.e. appellant of SLP (C) No.1305 of 2011, who was appointed after the promulgation of Rules in the year 1969, the Apex Court has also directed the respondent authorities to confer the benefits of pension since nothing was placed on record indicating that the prevalent procedure has been infracted or any reason why the appointment could be termed as "illegal" or "invalid" was shown. It is also observed that the employees are paid all the emoluments and salary like any regular employee and hence, the respondents were directed to pay the family pension and amount of gratuity with interest of 9% per annum. 13. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 24.12.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.81 of 2020, on which the reliance has been placed. The Division Bench, after survey of various judgments of Coordinate Benches or Division Bench and the judgment in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) has observed thus:- “40. For the sake of convenience, we may once again summarise what weighed with the Supreme Court in granting relief to Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). We quote :- (1) The appointment of deceased Vela Keshav was made by the Gram Panchayat by passing a resolution and he was holding the post within the sanctioned set up of 'Safai Kamdars' (Sweepers). The emphasis over here is on the 'sanctioned set up' of 'Safai Kamdars'. We quote :- (1) The appointment of deceased Vela Keshav was made by the Gram Panchayat by passing a resolution and he was holding the post within the sanctioned set up of 'Safai Kamdars' (Sweepers). The emphasis over here is on the 'sanctioned set up' of 'Safai Kamdars'. (2) Although the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat making the appointment of Vela Keshav were not available, yet the necessary entry made in the service book of the deceased employee showed the other details in the service record. (3) Vela Keshav was appointed as a Full Time employee on the sanctioned set up of the Gram Panchayat getting regular salary. (4) The Okha Gram Panchayat appointed Vela Keshav as 'Safai Kamdar' on the terms and conditions as its own employee where there were no rules. However, Vela Keshav was holding the post on the sanctioned set up by the Development Commissioner and had continued till his retirement as a Full Time employee. (5) The Supreme Court took the view that the appointment of Vela Keshav could not be said to have not been made in accordance with the provisions under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act because no such rules of recruitment were as such framed on the date on which Vela Keshav was appointed on 4th February 1964 (emphasis supplied). (6) Vela Keshav was appointed as 'Safai Kamdar' on 4th February 1964 by the Gram Panchayat. Section 203(3) of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules regulating the mode of recruitment. Rule 2 of the Gujarat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967 stipulates, inter-alia, that the Appointing Authority in respect of posts under the Gram Panchayat, which are included in the local cadre is Gram Panchayat itself. The term 'local cadre' finds elaboration in Part-III of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. The emphasis over here is on the term 'local cadre'. (7) In the year 1964, when deceased Vela Keshav came to be appointed, there were no rules governing the appointment as the rules regulating the Superior Panchayat Service and the Inferior Panchayat Service in the form of the Gram Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, came on the statute book in the year 1967. (8) Going by the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967, Gram Panchayat is the appropriate authority in respect of the posts included in the local cadre. (8) Going by the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967, Gram Panchayat is the appropriate authority in respect of the posts included in the local cadre. The emphasis once again over here is on the term 'local cadre'. 41. We shall now compare the facts in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) with the facts of the present case. 42. Before we undertake the aforesaid exercise, we must look into the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967. Section 2(f) defines the term 'Panchayat Service' to mean, 'Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203 of the Act'. Section 2(h) defines the term 'Selection Committee' to mean, 'District Panchayat Service Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 211 of the Act'. 48. In such circumstances referred to above, any appointment after the rules came into force had to be in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 203 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 49. By the Resolution dated 29th April 1989 issued by the Government of Gujarat through its Health Department, the dispensary of the Gram Panchayat was taken over and was converted into a Primary Health Centre. This is how late Kamlaben N.Mehta was absorbed as 'Aya' (Class-IV) in the Panchayat Service in the regular pay-scale of Rs.750- 940/- with effect from 29th April 1989 as a special case as she had already crossed the eligible age limit. The Condition No.6 of the Resolution dated 29th April 1989 categorically provided that the prior service rendered by late Kamlaben N.Mehta shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, leave, pension, etc. The Condition No.1 therein provides that the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- meant for a Class- IV employee would be available from the date of joining of the service as fresh appointment and the past service shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, leave, pension, etc. 50. In the case on hand, the writ-applicant was not a member of the Panchayat Service between 1968 and 1989 and, therefore,was not entitled to draw 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 the members of the Panchayat Service.” 14. A perusal of the Division Bench judgment reveals that the Division Bench was has only clarified the judgment rendered in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). A perusal of the Division Bench judgment reveals that the Division Bench was has only clarified the judgment rendered in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). The Division Bench has not held that the employees, who are appointed before 1967 are not entitled to pension. 15. I may also refer to the Circular dated 26.02.2008 issued by the Government of Gujarat, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development, which has been referred by the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). The said Circular has been specifically issued for the employees of converted gram panchayats like the respondent-panchayat. I have perused the Circular dated 26.02.2008. The perusal of the same would reveal that all the District Development Officers were directed by the State Government i.e. Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department to initiate necessary procedure to regularise the service of those employees who are appointed between 01.04.1963 to 05.06.1984. Indubitably, the petitioners are appointed in the aforesaid period. 16. A perusal of the provisions in paragraph No.5 of the resolution dated 26.02.2008 will clarify that the cut-off date of 05.06.1984 has been prescribed by the State Government, wherein it is directed that if such appointments are made after the aforesaid cut-off date without any approval of the competent authority, then the liability would be entirely on such Gram or Nagar Panchayat. Unquestionably, in the present case, it is not disputed that no such exercise has been undertaken either by the District Development Officer or Municipality or the Gram Panchayat for regularizing the service of the present petitioners. The Circular does not distinguish any mode of appointment, whether it is made by passing resolutions by the gram panchayat or by any other mode. It only refers to the employees appointed between 1963 to 1984. Thus, the petitioners who have served form more than 30 years cannot be deprived of the retirement benefits merely because the authorities did not undertake necessary exercise for regularizing their services. The case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). Thus, the petitioners who have served form more than 30 years cannot be deprived of the retirement benefits merely because the authorities did not undertake necessary exercise for regularizing their services. The case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra). Nothing has been pointed out before this Court also that the Okha Gram Panchayat was not competent to make such appointments by way of resolution or at the relevant time there existed any provision to make appointment by any authority other than the Gram Panchayat or there was any separate modality or procedure prescribed for such appointment. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out to this Court between the petitioners and the employees, who were before the Supreme Court. 17. Thus, the writ petitions succeed. Similar benefits which have been paid to the appellants in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) shall be paid to the petitioners. The Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) has granted 9% interest from the date of judgment, i.e. 01.07.2016. The respondents are directed to grant 9% interest on such benefits from the date of filing the writ petitions since the writ petitions are filed after the aforesaid judgment. The respondent-Okha Gram Panchayat and the State authorities were under an obligation to extend the benefit arising out of the judgment of the Apex Court since the petitioners are also the employees of the same gram panchayat and are appointed prior to 1967. 18. Necessary orders as per the directions issued by this Court shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. 19. Civil application No.1 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No.9299 of 2018 for bringing the legal heirs is allowed. Registry is directed to amend the cause title of the same.