JUDGMENT : 1. Leave to amend, the prayer clause in the memo of the petition. 2. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition, are praying for the retirement benefits from the respondent Panchayat as well as the State authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner No.2 has passed away and he is being represented by his legal heirs. Both the petitioners were working as Safai Kamdars and have rendered almost 35 years of service. The petitioner No.1 joined as a Daily Wager on 04.03.1980, whereas the deceased original petitioner No.2 joined the service on 04.04.1979. Since they were not regularized in service, the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.19318 of 2016. 4. By the order dated 22.11.2016 passed in the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.19318 of 2016, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners as per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and Ors. 2006 (4) S.C.C. 1 . The petitioners thereafter filed a representation and it appears that thereafter the services of the petitioners have been regularized and they are paid the regular pay-scale at par with the regular employees i.e. vide order dated 08.03.2022 and 07.02.2022 passed by the Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department in view of the orders passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application. The aforesaid order has also been produced by the respondent-Panchayat. The order dated 07.02.2022 pertains to the case of Manubhai Ramji Solanki i.e. the petitioner No.1 and in case of deceased - Kalubhai Mohanbhai Agarwal i.e. the petitioner No.2 the order is passed on 08.03.2022. The services of both the petitioners have been regularized, however the issue with regard to the payment of retirement benefits is still not resolved, as it is the case of the respondent State authorities that the burden of the pension and retirement benefit is to be borne by the respondent–Dhari Gram Panchayat from its own fund, whereas an affidavit is filed by the respondent-Dhari Gram Panchayat that they are not having any funds and are in need of more than Rs.3 to 3.50 crores. It is also stated that all the retired employees of the Gram Panchayat are being paid the pension and the burden has been borne by the State Government and hence, in absence of any funds, the State authority may be directed to bear the burden of the retirement benefits of the petitioners. 5. Learned advocate Ms.Acharya, has submitted that the petitioners are denied the retirement benefits only because of the inter se dispute between the respondent - State authority and Dhari Gram Panchayat. She has submitted that the entitlement of the pension and the retirement benefits of the petitioners are not in dispute and only because of the financial crunch on the part of Dhari Gram Panchayat, the petitioners are deprived of their retirement benefits, hence, she has requested to pass the appropriate orders. 6. Per contra learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the respondent-Dhari Gram Panchayat has submitted that the respondent-Panchayat has filed the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9068 of 2022 challenging the order dated 07.02.2022 and the action of the State Government shifting the burden of the retirement benefits on the respondent-Panchayat. He has submitted that there are as many as 61 retired employees of Dhari Gram Panchayat, who are being paid pension by the respondent-State Government and the cases of the petitioners cannot be singled out. It is submitted that the respondent-State authority may be directed to pay the retirement benefit to the petitioners and it is not the case that they are not appointed or sanctioned setup, de hors in the provisions of law and hence, the appropriate authority would be the Sate, who can grant the retirement benefits/pension to the petitioners. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raval has submitted that it would be duty of the respondent-Dhari Gram Panchayat to bear the expenditure of the retirement benefits of the petitioners, as they have been working with Dhari Gram Panchayat since more than a period of 30 years. Reliance is also placed by the learned AGP on Section 228 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 in support of his submissions and has submitted that the entire expenditure towards pay and allowances and other benefits available to an officer or servant of the Panchayat service serving under any Panchayat shall be made by that Panchayat from its own fund. Reliance is also placed by the learned AGP on Section 228 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 in support of his submissions and has submitted that the entire expenditure towards pay and allowances and other benefits available to an officer or servant of the Panchayat service serving under any Panchayat shall be made by that Panchayat from its own fund. Finally, it is submitted by the learned AGP that in case, the Court directs the State Government to pay the retirement benefits and pension, then liberty may be reserved in favour of the State Government to recover such funds and allowances from Dhari Gram Panchayat. 8. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents. 9. The dispute with regard to the entitlement of the present petitioners towards the retirement benefits and pension is not in dispute. Neither it is the case of the respondent-Dhari Gram Panchayat nor the State authority that they have been regularized de hors the provisions of law on the post, which was sanctioned. In fact the District Development Officer, Amreli, District Panchayat has also forwarded the proposals on 09.04.2020 to the Development Commissioner Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, to regularize the service of the petitioners and pay pension. The State Government has also not raised any objection with regard to the regularization of the petitioners in the service by Dhari Gram Panchayat. The State Government has also not disputed the details provided by the respondent- Panchayat of bearing the burden of almost 61 employees by the State Government towards the retirement benefits and pension, which are being paid to them. It is also not denied by the State Government that the Panchayat is in dire need of money and it has to recover an amount of approximately Rs.3 to 3.5 crores from the State Government in lieu of octori, such averments are made in the affidavit, filed by the Sarpanch of Dhari Gram Panchayat. 10. It is also not in dispute that for the employees, who have been regularly appointed and have retired from Dhari Gram Panchayat, as mentioned hereinabove, the entire burden of pension has been borne by the State government. Thus, in wake of the aforesaid facts, the respondent-State is directed to pay the pension and retirement benefits to the petitioners. 11. 10. It is also not in dispute that for the employees, who have been regularly appointed and have retired from Dhari Gram Panchayat, as mentioned hereinabove, the entire burden of pension has been borne by the State government. Thus, in wake of the aforesaid facts, the respondent-State is directed to pay the pension and retirement benefits to the petitioners. 11. So far as the provision of Section 228 of the Panchayats Act is concerned, on which reliance is placed by the State, the same will have no bearing on the issue raised in the writ petition. The provision of section 228 of the Act, are made subject to Rules framed by the State Government. No rules are shown to this Court, which prohibits payment of pension and retirement benefits of a panchayat employee for want of funds. The right to pension is a Constitutional right, and such right cannot be diluted neither by the Panchayat, which is a statutory body nor by the State, which is committed to see that the employees of panchayats or the State are expeditiously paid the retirement benefits on their retirement. No employee can be deprived of its Constitutional right of pension for the reason that his/her employer is short of funds. The right to pension can only be withheld only by operation of a statutory provision framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 12. Thus, once the petitioners have been regularized in service and their appointment or regularization in service is not doubted, they would be entitled to the benefits, which are being paid to the regular employees. The State authority shall accordingly pay the same, however liberty is reserved in favour of the State Government to recover such amount form Dhari Gram Panchayat, if permissible under the law. The necessary benefits arising out of the regularization of the service such as pension/retirement benefits shall be paid within a period of three moths from the receipt of writ of this order. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons and analysis, the present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.1599 of 2019 is allowed. RULE is made absolute. 14. In view of the disposal of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.1599 of 2019, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9068 of 2022. Permission as prayed for is granted. RULE is made absolute. 14. In view of the disposal of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.1599 of 2019, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9068 of 2022. Permission as prayed for is granted. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9068 of 2022 stands disposed of as withdrawn.