JUDGMENT : 1. The petition is preferred by praying the following reliefs : “6(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.22 of 2012 dated 17th July, 2014 and in Review Application No.22 of 2014 dated 6th January, 2015. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents authorities to release the pension and other consequential retirement benefits to petitioner with arrears and interest. (C) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider all the representation which has been made by the petitioner dated 25-01-2017, and dated 9-0202017, of the petitioner. (D) Be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the 32 years of the service of the petitioner as per rules and circular of the Government and direct to consider the order passed by District Court.” 2. The brief facts are as follows: 2.1 It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as English Typist with the respondent after being nominated by the Regional Employment Exchange on 13.03.1980. The condition of the appointment/Office Order stipulated that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis until further orders. It was further case of the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was on stop- gap arrangement basis and till his candidature was made available by the Collector, Rajkot. 2.2 The petitioner continued on the post as per the conditions stipulated in the officer order. It can be observed from the record that in the year 1988, the procedure was initiated to terminate the services of the petitioner based on a circular of the General Administration Department of State of Gujarat being Circular No.1178(K) dated 27.04.1976. Being aggrieved by such initiation of the proceedings of termination of services, the petitioner preferred Civil Suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, inter alia, praying for injunction against termination of his services as well as regularization of the service. The Civil Suit came to be numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.1214 of 1988. From the proceedings, it can be observed that a temporary injunction was granted to the petitioner against the termination of his services. The Civil Suit came to be numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.1214 of 1988. From the proceedings, it can be observed that a temporary injunction was granted to the petitioner against the termination of his services. On 07.02.2009, the Regular Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record as well as considering the arguments advanced by the parties. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot. During the pendency of the appeal, the decree and award passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.1214 of 1988 was stayed. The petitioner got superannuated on 30.11.2011 during the pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal. Therefore, the service of the petitioner was continued from 1988 till his superannuation on the basis of injunctions granted by the Civil Court. It was undisputed that the condition of services of the petitioner was temporary and purely on ad hoc basis. 2.4 It further transpires from the record that after the superannuation of the petitioner on 30.11.2011 and during the pendency of Regular Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioner, another application came to be preferred before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar. The basis of the appeal preferred before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal was that pursuant to superannuation of the petitioner on 30.11.2011, representations were made for payment of pensionary benefits. However, by way of communication dated 13.06.2012, proper response was not given to the petitioner. On the basis of such grievance, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar being Appeal No.22 of 2012. The said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by way of an order dated 15.07.2014, wherein it was observed that the Regular Civil Appeal of the petitioner was still pending. It was further observed that the appointment of the petitioner was solely on the basis of stop-gap arrangement and on purely temporary basis. It was also observed that the petitioner continued in services solely on temporary injunctions granted to the petitioner by the Civil Court and, therefore, placing reliance on Circular No.1176 dated 27.04.1976, the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It was also observed that the petitioner continued in services solely on temporary injunctions granted to the petitioner by the Civil Court and, therefore, placing reliance on Circular No.1176 dated 27.04.1976, the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal, petitioner also preferred Review Application before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal being Review Application No.22 of 2014, which also came to be dismissed on 06.01.2015. 2.5. After dismissal of Review Application, Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2009, which was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot vide order dated 17.12.2016. In the appeal, it was observed that the prayers for injunction against termination of service had become academic as the petitioner had already superannuated. It was also observed that prayers in the plaint regarding regularization of his services cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. It was further observed that the prayer of granting consequential benefits pursuant to superannuation cannot be considered in the appeal as it was not the issue in question in suit. On the basis of such observations, the appeal was dismissed on 17.12.2016. 2.6. Pursuant to the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner has preferred some representations for granting of pensionary benefits, which are not considered. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. G. K. Rathod for the petitioner and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 4. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the petitioner had continued his services till the date of his superannuation on the basis of the order of injunction passed by the learned Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.1214 of 1988. The petitioner had worked with great responsibility and he had an unblemished record. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not have been turned down without any basis. Therefore, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner would be automatic since the petitioner had continued in service till retirement. 4.1. It was further submitted by Mr. Rathod, learned advocate that the respondents are not complying with the directions giving pensionary benefits to the petitioner after rendering 32 years of qualifying services. It was further submitted by Mr. Therefore, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner would be automatic since the petitioner had continued in service till retirement. 4.1. It was further submitted by Mr. Rathod, learned advocate that the respondents are not complying with the directions giving pensionary benefits to the petitioner after rendering 32 years of qualifying services. It was further submitted by Mr. Rathod that the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal had observed that the petitioner can approach the concerned authority for pensionary benefits. However, when the petitioner approached the authority, there is no reply to the representation made by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is being not considered. Therefore, the authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner as well as representation of the petitioner is bad in law. On the basis of such submission, Mr. Rathod, learned advocate has prayed to allow the present petition. 5. Per contra, Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and it was also a stop-gap arrangement. The petitioner had continued solely on the basis of temporary injunction being granted in the Civil Suit. Such injunction continued till his superannuation and, therefore, there are not vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, for pensionary benefits, the learned Tribunal has rightly pointed out that as the petitioner was solely on stop-gap arrangement, those benefits cannot be granted to the petitioner. In such situation, Ms. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted to reject the petition. 6. After considering the arguments canvassed by both the parties, certain facts are uncontested. The main controversy in question is whether the petitioner, whose service tenure was temporary and ad hoc in nature, would qualify or not for pension and retirement benefits. It is true that continuance of services of the petitioner were pursuant to injunction being granted by the Civil Court against termination of the services of the petitioner. Such injunction continued during the pendency of the suit and after the dismissal of the suit, even in the appeal against the suit filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner got superannuated. Nonetheless, the service of the petitioner was blotless. Such injunction continued during the pendency of the suit and after the dismissal of the suit, even in the appeal against the suit filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner got superannuated. Nonetheless, the service of the petitioner was blotless. Therefore, the only question is whether the ad hoc and temporary service of the petitioner, which had survived with the injunction of the Civil Court, should be considered for qualification of pension and other retiral benefits. The question of pension on petitioner’s service being temporary and/or ad hoc, was considered by this Court in the case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal versus State of Gujarat & others in Special Civil Application No.19042 of 2017 decided on 07.05.2019. In that matter, Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, dealing with the qualifying service for the purpose of pension was considered. Rule 25 extracted in its relevant part, reads as under:- “Rule-25. Qualifying Service : Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government employee, means and includes, - (i) all service including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous but it shall not include - (a) service in non-pensionable establishment, (b) service paid from contingencies, (c) service rendered in daily rated establishment, (d) actual periods of break in service if any, between spell of service, (e) service prior to resignation, removal or dismissal, (f) service as an apprentice, (g) service on fixed pay basis, and (h) service on contract basis. (ii) all service rendered in work charged establishment provided that the total service put in, as such is five years or more, (iii) … … … (iv) … … … (v) … … … (vi) … … … (vii) … … … (viii) … … … (viii) … … … (ix) … … … 7. Thus, Rule 25(i) of the Rules provides that qualifying services, include services rendered on probation. It also includes services rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, whether interrupted or continuous. The only exception was that it would not include the services rendered in non-pensionable establishment or service rendered in contingencies or service rendered in daily-rated establishment. Therefore, the petitioner’s services would include the temporary and ad hoc service for qualifying service of pension. This ratio was considered in the case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal (supra). The only exception was that it would not include the services rendered in non-pensionable establishment or service rendered in contingencies or service rendered in daily-rated establishment. Therefore, the petitioner’s services would include the temporary and ad hoc service for qualifying service of pension. This ratio was considered in the case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal (supra). This ratio was also followed in the case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel versus State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018 decided on 18.10.2019. The ratio laid down in case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra) was confirmed till the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. In view of the above Rule-25 of Pension Rules 2002, temporary services are liable to be counted as pensionable. Even though the petitioners’ services were continued and was not terminated due to an injunction being granted by the Civil Court, the service was still an uninterrupted service on temporary basis for a continuous period of around 32 years. 9. As a result of the above, the petitioner has to be treated as entitled for grant of pensionary and retiral benefits, such as gratuity, leave encashment and those admissible to him on the basis of service of 32 years which would be treated as qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the present order and pay the petitioner pension regularly alongwith other retirement dues admissible and payable to him. The arrears which may arise shall be paid within further period of three months. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.22 of 2012 dated 17th July, 2014 and in Review Application No.22 of 2014 dated 6th January, 2015, are quashed and set aside. 10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.