JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgement and order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11453 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant claiming the family pension. 2. Brief facts, emanates from the record, are as under: The appellant – original petitioner is a widow of Dr.Chandrashekhar Prakash Chaudhary, who was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 05.06.1996 on pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- as Class-II Medical Officer. He passed away on 10.03.2003 while in service. Subsequently, after his appointment, his pay-scale was revised to Rs.8000-275-13500 with effect from 01.01.1996 i.e. from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.08.1996. This pay-scale was confirmed under the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998. The services of the husband of the appellant from 01.08.1996 to 10.03.2003 has been authorized by the Government in consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission vide order dated 14.05.2004. Consequential order was passed by the Additional Director on 31.05.2004. After the death of her husband, the appellant has requested the respondent authorities to grant family pension however, the same was refused on the ground that her husband had rendered ad hoc services and hence, she would not be entitled to any family pension. Ultimately, she has assailed inaction of the respondent authorities in the captioned writ petition and prayed for grant of family pension as well as the amount of group insurance. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part by directing the State authorities to pay the amount of group insurance however, declined the prayer of grant of family pension on the ground that late husband of the appellant had rendered ad hoc services, which would disentitle her to get the family pension under the Pension Rules. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing for the appellant has submitted that an employee, who was working on ad hoc basis, is entitled for family pension, as per Rule 25 of The Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules,2002. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing for the appellant has submitted that an employee, who was working on ad hoc basis, is entitled for family pension, as per Rule 25 of The Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules,2002. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the judgement dated 07.05.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.19042 of 2017 and also on the order dated 18.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018, which has been confirmed up to the Apex Court. She has further submitted that as per the Family Pension Rules and as per the Government Resolution dated 11.05.1990, if an employee before his death has completed 5 years’ service, is entitled for family pension and since the late husband of the appellant has completed more than 5 years of service, the appellant would be entitled to the family pension. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer of claiming family pension may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.M.D.Rahevar has submitted that since late husband of the appellant was rendering the services on ad hoc basis, she cannot be conferred the benefits of family pension. 5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The facts, which are established from the pleadings, are that late husband of the appellant was appointed on Class-II Medical Officer, after undergoing the regular recruitment process and put on the pay-scale of Rs.2200- 4000/-. Subsequently, his pay-scale has also been revised with effect from 01.01.1996 and he has also been conferred the regular pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/- with effect from 01.08.1996 i.e. from the date of initial appointment. This regular pay-scale has been conferred in view of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1998. The late husband of the appellant continued on ad hoc basis till he passed away due to unfortunate accident on 10.03.2003. A claim of pension has been rejected by the respondent authorities and is confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgement dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1666 of 2010 and ultimately, it is held that since late husband of the appellant has completed 7 years of service on ad hoc basis, the appellant would not be entitled to family pension. 6. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgement dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1666 of 2010 and ultimately, it is held that since late husband of the appellant has completed 7 years of service on ad hoc basis, the appellant would not be entitled to family pension. 6. We have perused the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and also the judgement of the Division Bench dated 07.09.2010, as incorporated by the learned Single Judge. 7. On perusal of the facts recorded by the Division Bench in the judgement dated 07.09.2010 and also the judgement of the learned Single Judge, which was confirmed by the Division Bench, it is revealed that the case of the employee before the Division Bench was that he has claimed regularization, after he retired from services, after rendering ad hoc services. The employee was appointed on ad hoc basis subject to clearance of examination held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. His claim was of regularizing him in services and hence, Division Bench has rejected his case. 8. On perusal of the facts recorded by learned Division Bench in the said judgement clarifies that the reliance, which was placed by that employee on Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, was negative on the basis that the Rule 25 contains that the services, which were rendered on ad hoc or irregular appointment, is not required to be considered as qualified service. It appears that the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition did not noticeably examined the provisions of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and the same nowhere stipulates any expressions “ ad hoc or irregular appointment”. Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 reads as under: 25. It appears that the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition did not noticeably examined the provisions of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and the same nowhere stipulates any expressions “ ad hoc or irregular appointment”. Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 reads as under: 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 contingences, (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) foreign service, (iv) vacation taken by Government employee in vacation department, (v) all periods of leave including extraordinary leave upto a maximum of thirty six months during entire service, (vi) addition to qualifying service admissible under rule-37, (vii) services rendered as Kotwal by a Government employee after regular appointment in the regular time scale. (viii) services rendered as full time attendant by a Government employee before his regular appointment in class IV service, and (ix) services rendered under Central Government/Central Government Autonomous bodies having pension scheme, by a Government employee who is absorbed in Government. (x) Pensionable service rendered by an employee in a grantin- aid institution the pension liability in respect of which is borne by the Government to the extent as may be ordered by the Government from time to time. 9. Clause (i) of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 enumerates the services from (a) to (h), which are not included as qualifying service. In fact, subclause (ii) of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 reveals that all service rendered in work charged establishment for five years or more, is required to be considered as qualified service for the purpose of pension. 10. In fact, subclause (ii) of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 reveals that all service rendered in work charged establishment for five years or more, is required to be considered as qualified service for the purpose of pension. 10. Even the services, which are rendered on probation/ temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous, rendered on regular establishment as per sub-clause (i) of Rule 25, are included as qualified service under the Pension Rules, 2002. 11. In the judgement dated 07.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.19042 of 2017, the learned Single Judge after considering provisions of Rule 25 and 26 of the Pension Rules, has held thus: “5.2 Thus, Rule 25(i) of the Rules provides that qualifying service shall include all services including services rendered on probation. It also includes services rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, whether interrupted or continuous. The qualifying service, but, would not include the service rendered in the non-pensionable establishment or service rendered in contingencies or service rendered in daily-rated establishment. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner could rightly emphasis the group of words “whether temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous” from the language of the Rules to submit that the petitioner's services would be included as per the Rules, within the purview of qualifying service for pension. 5.3 There is no gainsaying that in the present case, the appointment of the petitioner was never converted into contractual, nor the appointment was on a fixed salary. The Respondent where the petitioner was serving was grant-in-aid institute and the salary was paid to the petitioner under the grant-in-aid code. The petitioner also received Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions benefits from time-to-time. 5.4 Further, Rule 26 of the Rules reads to state about the Conditions subject to which service qualifies. It says in its sub-rule (1) that the service of a Government employee shall not qualify unless his duties, pay and allowance are regulated by the Government or under conditions determined by the Government. As per sub-section (2), it is provided that for the purpose of sub-rule (1) the expression 'service' means service under Government and paid by Government from the Consolidated Fund of State. As noted above, the salary to the petitioner was paid out of grant, therefore non-qualification contemplated under above Rule 26 would not arise for the petitioner. As per sub-section (2), it is provided that for the purpose of sub-rule (1) the expression 'service' means service under Government and paid by Government from the Consolidated Fund of State. As noted above, the salary to the petitioner was paid out of grant, therefore non-qualification contemplated under above Rule 26 would not arise for the petitioner. 5.8 Keeping in view the above observations and principles when the petitioner was continued in work, though as ad-hoc, on the post of Lecturer, it necessarily implied that the petitioner's post was pursuant to the need of the respondents and the petitioner discharged the duties in the permanent establishment. When the petitioner has put-forth his claim for pension and when the said claim falls within the purview of Rule 25 of the applicable rules and further that the petitioner possessed the qualifying service, the contention that his post was not sanctioned, could hardly be countenanced to impede an enforcement of right of the petitioner to get the pension. Sanction to the post of the petitioner has to be necessarily presumed when the petitioner was continued to thirty three years.” 12. While placing reliance on the said judgement, learned Single Judge in the order dated 18.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018 has allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to confirm the benefits to an employee, who has rendered the ad-hoc services. The same was assailed before the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.762 of 2020 and the same was rejected by order dated 13.10.2020, against which the State filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1109 of 2022. The same was rejected vide order dated 18.02.2022 by the Apex Court, which reads as under: “It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are adhoc, 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 content that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” 13. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to content that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” 13. In the present case, unfortunately late husband of the appellant passed away due to an accident and the respondent- State has denied the family pension to his widow on the ground that husband of the appellant was an ad-hoc employee. Late husband of the appellant has rendered 7 years of service. His service is also authorized by the State Government and he was also appointed on regular pay-scale, after undergoing necessary selection process. He was also appointed in regular pay-scale and subsequently, his regular pay-scale has also been revised from his initial date of appointment. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider these vital aspects before rejecting the prayer of the appellant claiming family pension. It is also not in dispute that an employee, who has rendered more than 5 years of service, is entitled to family pension. 14. Under these circumstances and looking to the overall facts, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant, who is a widow of the late Dr.Chandrashekhar Prakash Chaudhary, is required to be considered for grant of family pension on the basis of 7 years of service, which her late husband has rendered. 15. Accordingly, we direct the State Government and the respondents to prepare her pension papers and pay her retirement benefits including family pension and gratuity. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court, and the appellant shall be paid the benefits within such period.