JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to direct the respondents to release all the retiral dues of the petitioner with all consequential and incidental benefits. 2. Heard Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned advocate for Nanavati & Nanavati for the petitioners, Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for respondent No.5 – Dakor Municipality. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis on the post of Octroi Inspector vide resolution No.427 passed by the Dakor Municipal Borough in the year 1988, as the petitioner was meeting with the requisite qualifications for the post of Octroi Inspector. Though initially, the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of 29 days, the same was extended from time to time subsequently. In February, 1989, the petitioner was orally terminated by the respondent No.5, and therefore, being aggrieved by the same the petitioner raised dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad and was culminated into Reference (LCR) No.70 of 1990. 3.2 During the pendency of the said reference, settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and accordingly the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 29.12.1991. 3.3 Though the petitioner was required to be reinstated on the post of Octroi Inspector, at that time when the settlement took place between the parties, the post of Octroi Inspector was not available, and therefore, the petitioner was offered the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector with an understanding that as and when the post of Octroi Inspector falls vacant, the petitioner would be appointed on the said post. Accordingly, the petitioner accepted the aforesaid condition and was reinstated in the service. Thereafter, in the year 1996, Dakor Municipality passed a resolution to request the Director of Municipalities to accord the approval for appointment of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, a proposal was sent to the Director of Municipalities. However, the Director of Municipalities, refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner, and therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred petition being Special Civil Application No.7038 of 1998. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, a proposal was sent to the Director of Municipalities. However, the Director of Municipalities, refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner, and therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred petition being Special Civil Application No.7038 of 1998. Ultimately, the aforesaid petition was withdrawn vide order dated 13.7.2012 as the petitioner withdrew the same with a liberty to file representation before the authority in light of resolutions dated 22.1.2004 and other relevant documents. After the withdrawal of the petition, the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No.1918 of 2012 with a prayer to recall and modify the earlier order dated 13.7.2012 whereby the petition was withdrawn. However, Misc. Civil Application preferred by the petitioner to recall and modify the earlier order was rejected vide order dated 19.7.2012. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.7.2012, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2012 before this Court, which also came to be dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.8.2012. 3.5 Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Director of Municipalities and ultimately considering the representation made by the petitioner as well as recommendation of the Collector, vide letter dated 20.6.1998 and other relevant resolutions passed by the municipality, the Director of Municipalities vide order dated 10/18.4.2013 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 3.6 Surprisingly, though the respondent municipality itself vide resolution passed in the year 1996, requested the Director of Municipalities to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and when the Director of Municipality vide order dated 10/18.4.2013 sanctioned appointment of the petitioner, the same municipality challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013. In the said petition, this Court vide order dated 11.7.2014 issued rule and stayed the order dated 10/18.4.2013 passed by the Director of Municipalities. 3.7 During the pendency of Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013, the petitioner made an application to Dakor Municipality and sought voluntary retirement and the said request of the petitioner was accepted by Dakor Municipality by passing resolution No.119 dated 4.3.2014 and since in resolution No.119 there was some mistake the municipality passed another resolution No.130 and rectified the mistake committed in the earlier resolution No.119. 3.8 Despite the fact that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent Municipality vide resolution Nos.119 and 130 for the some extraneous reasons the petitioner's retiral benefits were not released by the respondent municipality. Hence, the petitioner served the municipality with legal notice. However, despite of service of notice, the municipality did not release any retiral benefits, and therefore, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent municipality, the has preferred this petition and prayed for reliefs, which are already mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. 3.9 It is pertinent to note that in the meantime, the respondent municipality passed resolution No.170 in its General Body Meeting dated 21.9.2020 and resolved to withdraw Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013 whereby the respondent municipality has challenged the order dated 10/18.4.2013 passed by the respondent municipality wherein stay was granted by this Court against the order sanctioning appointment of the present petitioner. However, pursuant to the aforesaid resolution vide order dated 18.1.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013, the coordinate Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner of that petition (respondent No.5 - Dakor Municipality in the present petition) permitted to withdraw the petitioner challenging the approval of the appointment of the petitioner and even stay granted in its favour was vacated. 3.10 The matter was heard in the aforesaid factual background. 4. Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that when the petitioner has served under respondent Municipality as Octroi Inspector and thereafter as Sanitary Sub-Inspector with effect from the year 1991 pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties in respect of the pending industrial dispute which was culminated into Reference (LCR) No.70 of 1990 and when the petitioner's appointment pursuant to the aforesaid settlement was sent for approval by the very municipality to the State Government in the year 1996 and thereafter when the petitioner’s appointment has been approved by the State Government vide order dated 10/18.4.2013, the respondents are not justified in not releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner. He further submitted that it is true that initially the aforesaid order dated 10/18.4.2013 passed by the Director of Municipality was challenged by the respondent municipality. However, subsequently the very municipality passed resolution in its General Body meeting and decided to withdraw Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013. He further submitted that it is true that initially the aforesaid order dated 10/18.4.2013 passed by the Director of Municipality was challenged by the respondent municipality. However, subsequently the very municipality passed resolution in its General Body meeting and decided to withdraw Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013. Accordingly, the aforesaid petition was withdrawn vide order dated 18.1.2021, and therefore, now even the order dated 10/18.4.2013 sanctioning the appointment of the petitioner has also become final. When the aforesaid order has become final, now considering the fact that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement has already been accepted way back in the year 2014 by the respondent municipality, the respondents are not justified in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner, and therefore, the respondents are required to be directed at the earliest to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner along with interest. 5. Mr. Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that it is true that the order dated 10/18.4.2013 is in force as on date and the same has not been challenged by any other party after withdrawal of Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013, and therefore, this Court may pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Mr. Sanchela, learned advocate for Dakor Municipality somehow opposed the petition vehemently though the respondent municipality itself was the appointing authority, the respondent municipality itself sent a proposal for sanctioning the appointment of the petitioner and the municipality itself decided to withdraw the petition challenging the order dated 10/18.4.2013 passed by the Director of Municipalities whereby the petitioner's appointment was approved. Though the petitioner was the employee of the respondent municipality itself, surprisingly learned advocate Mr. Sanchela objected to the petition and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Municipalities Act. He further submitted that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner, the approval of State Government was not taken, and therefore, for that act the petitioner's appointment can be said to be illegal appointment, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the retiral benefits even if his application for voluntary retirement is accepted by the respondent municipality. 6.1 Despite the fact that the respondent municipality has already withdrawn the petition being Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013 challenging the order dated 10/18.4.2013 giving approval to the appointment of the petitioner today repeatedly Mr. Sanchela submitted that the order dated 10/18.4.2013 is erroneous, and therefore, the petitioner should not be granted any retiral benefits. Though it was pointed out to Mr. Sanchela that the petition preferred by the respondent municipality has been withdrawn by the municipality by passing resolution No.170 in its General Body Meeting dated 21.9.2020, learned advocate Mr. Sanchela kept repeating the aforesaid submission and even insisted that the aforesaid submission be recorded in the order. Hence it has been recorded. 6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela kept repeating the aforesaid submissions knowing fully well that this is not Dakor Municipality’s petition and this petition is filed by the petitioner, who was employee of the municipality seeking relief of release of his retiral dues and despite the earlier rejection of the application / recommendation by the respondent municipality to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1998, the Director of Municipalities has approved the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 10/18.4.2013. 7. Except the above submissions, no other submission is made or any judgment is cited by learned advocates for the parties. 8. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record of the case. From the facts stated in the petition as well emerging from the record as well as submissions made by the parties, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1988 as Octroi Inspector on ad-hoc basis and his services were terminated orally in February, 1989. Upon raising an industrial dispute by the petitioner being aggrieved by termination of his service, the respondent municipality entered into settlement with the petitioner and offered him the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector instead of Octroi Inspector, which the petitioner was holding earlier. That settlement was placed before the Labour Court and pursuant to the settlement itself, the petitioner was reinstated and offered the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector. The very municipally resolved in the year 1996 to recommend to the Director of Municipalities to approve the appointment of the petitioner. It is true that in the year 1998 the Director of Municipalities rejected the application of the municipality whereby the approval of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector. The very municipally resolved in the year 1996 to recommend to the Director of Municipalities to approve the appointment of the petitioner. It is true that in the year 1998 the Director of Municipalities rejected the application of the municipality whereby the approval of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector. However, it is also equally true that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order and fought up to the Division Bench of this Court and ultimately withdrew the main petition with a view to make a representation to the Director of Municipalities. Ultimately the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Director of Municipalities and vide order dated 10/18.4.2013 the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Director of Municipalities. Even that action was also challenged by the respondent municipality thereafter. Despite the fact that a co-ordinate Bench has stayed the order dated 10/18.4.2013 in Special Civil Application No.17104 of 2013 preferred by Dakor Municipality and though the petition was pending and stay was operating in favour of the respondent municipality, the municipality by passing a resolution No.117 in its General Body Meeting dated 21.9.2020 and decided to withdraw the aforesaid petition and accordingly the petition was withdrawn and even the stay which was operating in favour of the Dakor Municipality whereby the order dated 10/18.4.2013 was stayed by this Court, was came to be vacated as the petition was withdrawn. 8.1 It is true that learned advocate Mr. Sanchela vehemently opposed the petition by citing various provisions of Municipalities Act, more particularly Section 50, by stating that the original appointment was erroneous. However, facts remains that rightly or wrongly the respondent municipality itself had withdrawn the challenge to the order dated 10/18.4.2013, and therefore, as on today the order dated 10/18.4.2013 whereby the petitioner's appointment was approved by the Director of Municipalities still holds the field. Once the petitioner's appointment is held to be legal and valid and when the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from services by passing resolution No.119 dated 4.3.2014 and subsequently by passing resolution No.130 rectifying the mistake in resolution No.119, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had actually served from 1991 till 2014 under the respondent municipality, at this stage, it is not open for the respondent municipality to object in paying the retiral dues of the petitioner. 8.2 In view of the above, as the petitioner has served under the respondent municipality from 1991 to 2014, and his application for voluntarily retirement has duly been accepted by the respondent municipality, the petitioner is entitled for all the retiral benefits, as per his entitlement pursuant to his voluntary retirement. The respondents are hereby directed to release all the retiral benefit in favour of the petitioner as per the entitlement of the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from today along with interest @6% p.a. from the date on which the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent municipality. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs.