JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses “C” and “C-1” as under: “(C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to prepare and forward pension proposal of petitioner including the monthly pension and other admissible benefits by considering half service rendered by him on temporary basis i.e. about 22 and half years, in addition to deemed date of permanency as per judgment and award passed by Industrial Court on permanent post and accordingly the petitioner be paid pensionary benefits as well as regular monthly pension along with interest @ 12% per annum and for that purpose necessary directions be issued. (C-1) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 08th December, 2015 issued by the respondent No. 2 thereby regularizing the service of petitioner from the year, 2015 in-stead of 2002 be quashed and set aside/modified. Consequently, the respondents be directed to pay the arrears of salary of petitioner as permanent employee since from the year, 2002 and the respondents be further directed to grant pensionary benefits to petitioner by treating him as permanent employee since from the year, 2002 by considering his earlier temporary service to the extent half and for that purpose necessary directions be issued.” 3. The following are the undisputed facts emerging from the record: (a) The petitioner joined the respondent Agricultural University on 24.4.1997, as a labourer. (b) In 2001, there was a mass retrenchment in several Agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra, which was effected by taking prior permission of the State Government. However, an application under Section 25N, under Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not moved before the Deputy Commissioner (Labour), seeking permission to retrench these workers, who were in thousands. (c) Nevertheless, the workers accepted the retrenchment. (d) Subsequent thereto, as like many other retrenched workmen, the present petitioner was reemployed on 11.07.2002. (e) Though the order of reemployment does not refer to Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r.w. Rule 82 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, the employer was obliged to reemploy the retrenched workmen, as per their seniority. (d) Subsequent thereto, as like many other retrenched workmen, the present petitioner was reemployed on 11.07.2002. (e) Though the order of reemployment does not refer to Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r.w. Rule 82 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, the employer was obliged to reemploy the retrenched workmen, as per their seniority. In short, the principle of senior most employee being invited first for reemployment was followed. (f) It is equally undisputed that the petitioner was granted regularization by the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2015. (g) All retrenched workmen, who were re-employed, were issued with an identical orders. (h) In the case of the petitioner, he was granted regularization on the post which was vacant and available w.e.f. 08.02.2015. 4. The issue is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for the pensionary benefits. Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, reads as under: “30. Commencement of qualifying service Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that at the time of retirement he shall hold substantively a permanent post in Government service or holds a suspended lien or certificate of permanency. Provided further that, in cases where a temporary Government servant retires on superannuation or on being declared permanently incapacitated for further Government service by the appropriate medical authority after having rendered temporary service of not less than 10 years, or voluntary after the completion of 20 years of qualifying service, shall be eligible for grant of superannuation, Invalid or, as the case may be, Retiring Pension; Retirement Guaranty and family pension at the same scale as admissible to permanent Government servant.” 5. There is no dispute that Rule 57 does not apply to the case of the petitioner. Rule 57 reads as under: “57. Non-Pensionable service As exceptions to rule 30, the following are not in pensionable service: (a) Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but whose whole time is not retained for the public service. (b) Government servants who are not in receipt of pay but are remunerated by honoraria. (c) Government servant who are paid from contingencies. Non-Pensionable service As exceptions to rule 30, the following are not in pensionable service: (a) Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but whose whole time is not retained for the public service. (b) Government servants who are not in receipt of pay but are remunerated by honoraria. (c) Government servant who are paid from contingencies. (d) Government servants holding posts which have been declared by the authority which created them to be non-pensionable. (e) Holders of all tenure posts in the Medical Department, whether private practice is allowed to them or not, when they do not have an active or suspended like on any other permanent posts under Government. Note 1: In cases of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for pension. Note 2: In the case of persons who were holding the posts of attendants prior to 1st, April 1966, one-half of their previous continuous service as attendants, shall be allowed to count for pension.” 6. The Division Bench of this Court in Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2001 (4) Mh. L.J. 587, has concluded that, Rule 30 would be applicable to daily wagers, who have been granted regularization/permanency in employment prior to their superannuation. 7. The Single Judge Bench of this Court to which one of us is a party (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) has delivered a judgment in Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth vs. Ganpat Kisan Karle, 2016 (3) AIR Bom R 697, concluding that, Rule 30 would apply to a candidate who has been granted regularization prior to his superannuation. In the case of daily wagers, who have continued on daily wages and put in more than 20 years and retired in the same position, would also be entitled for the pensionary benefits by computing 50% of the daily wage service. This Court relied upon Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare (supra) while delivering the judgment in Ganpat Kisan Karle (supra). 8. It is equally undisputed that hundreds of daily wagers, who were retrenched in the mass retrenchment in 2001, were reemployed as per their seniority. One Madhukar Gyanji Dhage, who was also such retrenched workman, but was amongst the skilled/semi skilled daily wagers, is identically placed as like the present petitioner. 8. It is equally undisputed that hundreds of daily wagers, who were retrenched in the mass retrenchment in 2001, were reemployed as per their seniority. One Madhukar Gyanji Dhage, who was also such retrenched workman, but was amongst the skilled/semi skilled daily wagers, is identically placed as like the present petitioner. Hewas at S. No. 179 amongst the daily wager/Majdoors. The said Madhukar Gyanji Dhage was denied pensionary benefits by the State Government, relying upon clauses 3 and 14, wherein such retrenched workmen were considered ineligible for pensionary benefits. Madhukar Dhage approached this Court in writ petition No. 1533 of 2002. Vide judgment dated 05.03.2015, this Court held in Para 9 as under: “9 The condition Nos. 3 and 14, which are impugned by way of this petition, in its vernacular language, read as under: xxx xxx xxx In our consideration, to prosecute any legal proceedings, is a right of an employee, which cannot be denied, curtailed or restricted by any employer. So also, no employer can put condition, which is against the law. To prosecute legitimate grievance before the Court of law, is a right of person, which cannot be denied or curtailed by obtaining an undertaking from the person. Even if such undertakings are obtained from any employee, same shall have no force of law. Irrespective of such undertaking is given, the person can ventilate his grievance and put forth his legitimate claim before any Court of law. There is no question of such legal right being surrendered by any person to his employer as a condition precedent to take him back in the employment. We are, therefore, of the view that both the aforesaid conditions are not only illogical but same are also illegal and not sustainable in law. Such conditions have no binding effect on any person, who is forced to accept such conditions. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in terms of prayer clause (B) to the extent that such conditions shall not operate as against the Petitioner in ventilating his grievance and to exercise his legal right to approach appropriate forum to claim reliefs as permissible in law.” 9. By delivering an exhaustive judgment, in Madhukar Dhage, this Court directed the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, which is the same respondent University before us, to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner, Madhukar Dhage. 10. By delivering an exhaustive judgment, in Madhukar Dhage, this Court directed the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, which is the same respondent University before us, to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner, Madhukar Dhage. 10. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that, since the petitioner has been granted regularization vide order issued by the University, dated 8.12.2015, in the light of the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2015, there would be no question of the petitioner claiming retiral benefits in terms of any scale applicable to the services rendered prior to his confirmation, since the law laid down under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, would not apply to daily wage employees working under the State or the State Instrumentalists. [Read Municipal Council Tirora and Another vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, 2016 (6) Mh. L.J. 867]. 11. The learned A.G.P. points out from the case of Madhukar Dhage (supra) that the said judgment was delivered in the peculiar facts of the case. He further submits that none of these employees were selected by following the law of recruitment applicable to public employment. In Madhukar Dhage (supra), the PAP affected persons were considered. 12. Though this argument may appear to be attractive at first blush, the University is bound by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the daily wagers were retrenched, since all of them were working continuously and had put in 240 days in each calendar year, the University took special permission from the Government to retrench such daily wagers. Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, was followed r.w. Rule 81 of the Industrial Dispute (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The ‘last come first go’ principle was followed while retrenching such daily wagers. When the occasion to reemploy daily wagers arose, as the University required workers to work in their Agricultural activities, the retrenched workmen were given first preference and they were reemployed. 13. In these circumstances, in our view, Rule 31 may not be applicable considering the fact that these workmen were reemployed in their capacity of being retrenched workmen and upon granting regularization in service, the pensionary benefits are required to be calculated from the date of induction in service. 13. In these circumstances, in our view, Rule 31 may not be applicable considering the fact that these workmen were reemployed in their capacity of being retrenched workmen and upon granting regularization in service, the pensionary benefits are required to be calculated from the date of induction in service. Having been reemployed on 11.7.2002 and since the earlier retrenchment fetched the petitioner and similarly situated workers, with retrenchment compensation and gratuity amounts, which were never asked to be redeposited, their earlier engagement, until their mass retrenchment in 2001, therefore, stood ignored. 14. It cannot be ignored in the present case, that the petitioner had approached the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 34 of 2012. By judgment dated 17.3.2015, he was granted permanency and continuity in service from the date of his reemployment, as retrenched employee. The University approached the learned Single Bench of this court in writ petition No. 10559 of 2015. By that time, the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2015 was introduced and the University issued an order of regularization on 8.12.2015. The petitioner was, therefore, considered to be a regularized employee on the roll of establishment. Madhukar Dhage was one of such employees in the same University, who was also reemployed under the same order and granted regularization under the same Government Resolution. In view of the above, we are of the view that the issue raised before us is no longer res-integra. 15. Considering the law laid down in Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare (supra), Ganpat Kisan Karle (supra) and Madhukar Gyanji Dhage (supra), we conclude that the petitioner will be entitled for the pensionary benefits from the date of his superannuation, by taking into account his last drawn wages. This petition is therefore, allowed. Rule made absolute in the above terms. 16. The learned advocate for the petitioner requests that the University authority may be directed to process the pensionary benefits of the petitioner since it has been five years after the retirement that he is litigating for the same. 17. In view thereof, we find that the University would be well advised if the pension papers are processed within 30 days from today and the payment of pension is started within 30 days thereafter. The arrears of pension would also be paid by the authorities, within a period of 90 days from today.