JUDGMENT : N.V.ANJARIA, J. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the appellants and learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh for the respondent. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred by the Agricultural Research Centre, Amreli and the Junagadh Agriculutral University - appellants herein, is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the Special Civil Application of the respondent-original petitioner came to be allowed. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to pension having completed the years of qualifying service as provided under the relevant pension rules of the university. 3. What was prayed by the petitioner in her Special Civil Application was to direct the respondent authorities to fix the pension and pay the pension regularly including arrears of pension from the date of retirement of the petitioner, which was 31.01.2010. 3.1 The petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Labourer in respondent no.1 University as daily wager with effect from 10.06.1979. It was stated that at that time, she was getting wage of Rs.5/- per day and was required to serve for eight hours everyday. It is the case of the petitioner that a scheme was framed by respondent no.2 University for the purpose of regularisation of the daily-rated employees. According to the scheme, those daily wagers who may have completed 10 years of service including 240 days in a year on 31.12.2000 where entitled to be regularised as permanent and were entitled to get pay-scale. The Scheme was framed on 17.03.2001, which was pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Gujarat University in Gujarat Agricultural University vs Rathod Labhu Bechar[ (2001) 3 SCC 574 ]. 3.2 It was further the case of the petitioner that she had completed 10 years of service including 240 days in a year to be entitled to the benefit of regularisation in the said scheme. The petitioner made representation, sent demand notice through the Union and also approached the District Collector, with representation, but nothing yielded. Not only that, it was stated that under section 2 of the scheme, the University regularised the employees who were in fixed salary by issuing office order. The petitioner made representation, sent demand notice through the Union and also approached the District Collector, with representation, but nothing yielded. Not only that, it was stated that under section 2 of the scheme, the University regularised the employees who were in fixed salary by issuing office order. 3.3 It was averred by the petitioner that other employees who had been working with the petitioner named Kashiben Pethani appointed on 18.05.1983, Jayaben Sakadiya appointed on 19.07.1985 and Parshottambhai Parmar who was appointed on 16.08.1988 came to be regularised. The petitioner was appointed on 10.06.1979 and named employees who have been regularised were junior to the petitioner, it was contended. 3.4 The petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.10.2010. It appears that the petitioner made application before the Visama Lok Adalat on 16.02.2010 for payment of leave encashment, pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. The order passed by the said forum allowed the payment of gratuity and other benefits, however, the issue remained pending. It was the grievance of the petitioner in the petition that though having reached the age of 62 years, the respondent University had denied pension to her. 3.5 The petition was contested by respondent by filing affidavit-in-reply. Rejoinder affidavit and sur-rejoinder affidavit were also filed. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner was daily wager and could not be said to be holding any post and that she was entitled to any pensionary benefit in view of Rule 11.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural Employees Pension Rules. It was submitted that only those persons on full time post were liable to be regularised and order pension. 4. Learned Single Judge while allowing the petition inter alia noted that the petitioner had been working at least since 1994 till 2003 as field worker and by order dated 07.03.2006, she was made permanent with effect from 01.01.2004. The contention of the petitioner was noted that when the alternative dispute resolution forum granted the benefit of gratuity, etc., it recognised the service period of petitioner from 1993-2010, that is, the span of 17 years and the benefit was accordingly granted. Be as it may. 5. The moot question is whether the petitioner could be said to have completed qualifying service as per pension rules framed by the agricultural university. Be as it may. 5. The moot question is whether the petitioner could be said to have completed qualifying service as per pension rules framed by the agricultural university. 5.1 Chapter IV titled as "Qualifying Service, Pensionalble Pay, Amount of Pension Etc.", in its Rule deal 11.1 deal with the meaning and scope and ambit of qualifying service. The said pension rules was produced before the Court on behalf of the University. 5.2 Rule 11.1 reads as under, "11.1 Qualifying service means and includes the following service rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, Interrupted or continuous; (i) All pensionable service from the date of appointment/absorption in the University; (ii) All pensionable service rendered in Government prior to date of absorption in the University and treated as qualifying service under rules of the Government; (iii) All service rendered in the Institute of Agriculture, Anand, prior to 1-6-1972; (iv) All service rendered in the Agricultural School, Alia- bada, prior to 1-2-1973; (v) Foreign service; (vi) All kinds of leave including extra-ordinary leave (limited to 36 months); (vii) All refused leave; (viii) Notional service added vide Rule 7.6. But it shall not include: (a) A deleted by the Board of Management on 4-11-74. (b) Service paid from contigencies. (c) Service rendered in work charged establishment and daily rated establishment; (d) Actual periods of break in service; (e) Service prior to resignation: (f) Suspension period not treated as duty or leave; (g) Service rendered by an employee who is not in receipt of pay but is remunerated by honoraria. 5.3 Rule 12.1 mentions about pensionable pay to mean that during last 10 months, 20 months or 36 months, whichever is greater subject to maximum provided. As per Rule 13.1, an employee retiring after completing qualifying service of less than 10 years of superannuation, retirement, invalid or compensatory pension shall not be entitled to any pension on the ground that he completed the qualifying service in rule 11.1. 5.4 Learned Single Judge noted and reproduced Rule 11.1 and observed about Rule 11.1 in paragraph 14, "Rule 11.1 clearly provides that qualifying services to mean to include the services rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous. 5.4 Learned Single Judge noted and reproduced Rule 11.1 and observed about Rule 11.1 in paragraph 14, "Rule 11.1 clearly provides that qualifying services to mean to include the services rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the period which the petitioner had rendered as a Field Worker on Daily Wage basis would be covered under the parameters prescribed under Rule 11.1." 5.5 It was further observed in para 15 that though in the provision, the qualifying service would not include the services rendered in work charge establishment and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had rendered service in the work charged establishment or daily rated establishment. 5.6 Learned Single Judge observed that the documents were placed on record by way of pay-slips, showed that the petitioner was a field worker. It was therefore held that the service of the petitioner from 1993 was required to be reckoned to count the total qualifying service. 6. Looking to Rule 11.1 dealing with qualifying service, it is clearly mentions that it would include the services rendered in capacity as any capacity, whether temporary or permanent, uninterrupted or continuous. The petitioner evidently falls within the said category to earn to his credit the qualifying service from the date mentioned. 6.1 It may be stated that Rule 25 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which also deals with qualifying service is similarly worded to include the service rendered in any capacity, whether temporary or permanent or uninterrupted or continuous. 6.2 This Court had an occasion to deal with similar issue in the context of said Rule 25 of the Pension Rules, 2002 in Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 19042 of 2017 decided on 07.05.2019 as well as in Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 20185 of 2018 decided on 18.10.2017. 6.3 In Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra), the petitioner had worked as adhoc employee for long 30 years and was held to have earned the qualifying service under Rule 25, which included services as temporary or permanent or uninterrupted or continuous, as stated above. 6.4 The petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation as back as on 30.10.2010. 6.3 In Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra), the petitioner had worked as adhoc employee for long 30 years and was held to have earned the qualifying service under Rule 25, which included services as temporary or permanent or uninterrupted or continuous, as stated above. 6.4 The petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation as back as on 30.10.2010. Presently she is almost 75 years of age, she has rendered long services under the respondents, which as per her say, case was from 1979 and as granted by learned single Judge, since 1993. In any view, it is a service rendered for long period. The petitioner claims benefit of pension and is found to have completed qualifying service under the pension rules as highlighted above. 6.5 While holding that the learned Single Judge committed no error whatsoever in allowing the petition of the petitioner and directing the respondents to pay pension and arrears of pension, following observations of the Supreme Court, by which the Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra) was confirmed, deserves to be noticed, "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an adhoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a Welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendered more than 30 years service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed." 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal and the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2022 allowing the prayers of the petitioner stands meritless. Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed. The respondents shall comply with the directions regarding fixation and payment of pension including payment of arrears on or before 31.05.2023.