JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. R. Vakil, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 and Mr. Subham B. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dipen K. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.4. 2. Rule. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, the learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. Subham B. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dipen K. Dave, the learned advocate, waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No.4. 3. All the four captioned petitions challenge the decision taken by the Respondent No.2, wherein by the impugned communication dated 10-01-2019 issued by the respondent No.2 addressed to the respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that since the service of the petitioners was not on regular setup of the respondent No.4 sanctioned by the competent authority, the petitioners are not entitled for retirement benefits including the pensionary benefits as stated in the impugned communication at Annexure-K to the petition. 4. The petitioners herein were appointed on different permanent posts in Jhalod Gram Panchayat which was reconstituted as “Nagar Panchayat" with effect from 7.9.1965 and thereafter, it was reconstituted as "Jhalod Nagarpalika" with effect from 15.4.1994. The Petitioners retired on superannuation reaching the age of 58 years. The same is annexed Annexure “B" (Colly.) showing the appointment and date of retirement of each of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners herein seek the benefit of Government Resolution No. NPM/1095/519/2 dated 22.01.1996 clarifying that all the employees of Nagarpalikas of the State who have been appointed after 1963 and before 1994 are entitled to all the retirement benefits subject to certain conditions incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 28.11.1994. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners undertake to abide by such conditions in accordance with the G.R. dated 28.11.1994. The petitioners herein are undisputedly appointed after 1964 and are entitled to the benefit of said G.R. dated 28.11.1994. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that Panchayat services constituted under Section 203 of The Gujarat Panchayats Act is a Civil Services of the State and are considered as State Government Servants as held in the Special Civil Application No.1206 of 1978. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that Panchayat services constituted under Section 203 of The Gujarat Panchayats Act is a Civil Services of the State and are considered as State Government Servants as held in the Special Civil Application No.1206 of 1978. Similarly reliance is placed by the petitioners in the case of an identically placed employee of the respondent No.3 Nagarpalika, the petition being Special Civil Application No.13562 of 1994 seeking directions to the respondent authorities for all the retirement benefits including pension as accorded to the other Government servants came to be allowed by order dated 13.10.2008. The said order was subject matter of challenge in the LPA No.23 of 2010 whereby by order dated 11.2.2010 the order passed in the SCA No.13562 of 1994 came to be confirmed except to the extent that the benefits were accorded to the employees of the said petition. The said order was subject matter of challenge in the LPA No.23 of 2010 was also challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of SLP (Civil) No.8880 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by order dated 17.7.2013. 8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid facts, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs :- “(A) This Petition may kindly be admitted; (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting-aside the decision taken by the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated l0-01-2019 (Annexure-K). (C) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order Or directions directing directing the Respondents to treat the services of the Petitioners On regular set-up of the Respondent No.4 Nagarpalika as a special case as has been stated by the Collector, Dahod in its letter dated 29-07-2017 (Annexure-N) by further directing the Respondents to provide all retirement benefits including pensonary benefits to the Petitioners forthwith. (D) Honble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to the Petitioners entire arrears of pension with 8.5% interest per annum till actual payment made to the Petitioners. (E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to each of the Petitioners reasonable amount of monthly pension. (E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to each of the Petitioners reasonable amount of monthly pension. (F) Any other and further relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted to the Petitioners;” Submissions on behalf of the petitioners :- 9. Mr. R. R. Vakil, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners herein submits that the petitioners herein were serving with Jhalod Gram Panchayat which was reconstituted as “Nagar Panchayat" with effect from 7.9.1965 and thereafter, it was reconstituted as "Jhalod Nagarpalika" with effect from 15.4.1994. Placing reliance on the aforesaid it was submitted that the petitioners herein are identically placed to the petitioners of SCA No.1988 of 2014 whereby by order dated 8.10.2015 the prayers as prayed for were allowed with the direction to sanction the pensionary benefits in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and all consequential benefits from the date of retirement with arrears at the rate of 8.5% interest p.a. till the actual payment is made. 9.1 Reliance is also placed by Mr. Vakil, the learned advocate on the order passed in the SCA No.13884 of 2011 dated 25.9.2018 wherein identically placed petitioners were granted the same reliefs in the SCA No.13562 of 1994 wherein the prayers as prayed for in the said petition came to be allowed. 9.2 It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid the petitioners are deprived of the retirement benefits such as pension inspite of the orders passed by this Court from time to time. It is submitted that subsequent to the order passed in the SCA No.4618 of 2016 dated 28.3.2016 contempt petition was filed wherein the said contempt petition was disposed on the letter being produced by the respondent authority the said contempt petition came to be disposed of wherein it was the stance of the respondent authority that the petitioners were not on regular setup of the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika sanctioned by the competent authority and not entitled to the retirement benefits including the pensionary benefits. 9.3 It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid the petitioners herein filed the present petition challenging the communication dated 10.1.2019 duly produced at Annexure-L, the same being contrary to the provisions of law and the orders passed by this Court from time to time. 9.4 It is submitted that while issuing the impugned order the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate the contents of the letter issued by the respondent No.3 Collector dated 9.1.2018 which states that as per the order of the High Court the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika has prepared the pension papers of the petitioner and sent to the office of the respondent No.5 Local Fund Supervisor through the Collector, Dahod, upon which the respondent No.5 raised a query to the effect whether the petitioner was employee of regular setup. 9.5 It was submitted that by communication dated 29.7.2017 the Collector has opined that in absence of any proof or evidence it is not proper to refuse the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and accordingly requested to do the needful by treating the case of the retired employees including the petitioners, as the employees of the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid the petitioners herein are identically placed to the petitioners of SCA No.13884 of 2011. 9.6 It is submitted that the respondents have sanctioned pension to one of the retired employee of the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika, therefore refusing the said benefits to the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. The copy of the same is duly produced at Annexure-E. The statement which is prepared by the petitioners is also produced on record at Annexure-Q with respect to those retired employees who are entitled to receive pensionary benefits. 9.7 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 :- 10. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned communication dated 10.1.2019 wherein it appears that the petitioners herein are not employees within the regular setup. It is submitted that in view thereof, the prayers as prayed for are such that are not require to be granted. Analysis :- 11. It is submitted that in view thereof, the prayers as prayed for are such that are not require to be granted. Analysis :- 11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioners herein are the employees of Jhalod Nagarpalika, having been appointed on different posts in Jhalod Gram Panchayat as referred to in Schedule-A, (Annexure-A) to the petition having retired upon reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. Copies of the certificates duly issued to the petitioners with respect to the service rendered, by the Chief Officer of the Jhalod Nagarpalika showing the date of appointment and date of retirement of each of the petitioners is duly produced at Annexure-B. The petitioners herein have an unblemished service record. Upon reconstitution of Jhalod Nagarpalika with effect from 15.4.1994 in the State of Gujarat, the then Director of Municipalities issued the letter dated 22.9.2011 addressed to all the Collectors for the purpose of according all retirement benefits including pension to all employees of Nagarpalika in the State which were reconstituted with effect from 15.4.1994. The said letter states that the employees who had been appointed after 1963 and before 1994 would be entitled to all such retirement benefits including pension, family pension etc. Upon perusal of the aforesaid Schedule which is duly produced at Annexure-A, it merges that all the petitioners were appointed with the respondent No.3 after 1963 and before 1994 and are entitled to receive retirement benefits as per letter dated 22.9.2011 which is duly produced at Annexure-C to the petition. 11.1 This Court has also perused the statement prepared by the Jhalod Nagarpalika which is duly produced at Annexure-Q at page-131 with respect to the retired employees who are entitled to receive the pensionary benefits, however the Nagarpalika failed to obtain requisite sanction from the competent authority with respect to their services in regular setup of the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika and in view thereof the petitioners were refused pensionary benefits. The Collector, Panchmahal at Godhra by communication dated 29.7.2017 also opined that the petitioners herein be granted the benefit of pension with retrospective effect. The Collector, Panchmahal at Godhra by communication dated 29.7.2017 also opined that the petitioners herein be granted the benefit of pension with retrospective effect. 11.2 The said communication issued by the Collector dated 29.7.2017 which is duly produced at page-110, relevant para at pages-112 and 113 read thus (true translation):- “As per para-7 of Resolution dated 28.11.1994 of the Urban Department and Urban Housing Department of the Government to obtain the Optional Form to choose GPF in prescribed format from thirteen (13) out of fifteen (15) employees mentioned in S.C.A. before the Hon’ble High Court and the entry should be made in their Service book. However, at that time the Option Form had not been obtained from the employees due to oversight and the entry was not made in their servicebook. As the contempt was filed in M.C.A. No. 1810/2016 before Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat with respect to the pension of these fifteen (15) employees, the objection was raised from the Office of District Assistant Local Fund Account, Dahod. The pension is given to the employees from own funds of Nagarpalika by Office order which are converted after 1963 or the pension is given from Government. Therefore, it does not appear appropriate that these employees are not entitled to get pension, as any evidence regarding the office Resolution of conversion from Nagarpanchayat to Nagarpalika of Zalod Nagarpalika is not found. It is opined to grant the pension case. Therefore, it is requested to take further necessary action to give exemption in the special case from the option with retrospective effect.” 11.3 In this view of the matter the State Government qua identically placed employees has accorded all the benefits to the retired employees of Kalol Nagarpalika, refusing the same benefits to the petitioners, who are retired and identically placed employees of the respondent No.4 Nagarpalika. 11.4 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in the Special Civil Application No.13562 of 1994, paragraphs 5 and 6 read thus :- “5. This Court has gone through the materials placed on record including the various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this court. 11.4 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in the Special Civil Application No.13562 of 1994, paragraphs 5 and 6 read thus :- “5. This Court has gone through the materials placed on record including the various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this court. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 1206 of 1978, wherein it is held that the panchayat service constituted under section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is a Civil service of the state and members of the service are government servants. In that view of the matter, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. This petition therefore requires to be allowed. 6. In the premises aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The respondent shall extend the benefits relating to equation of posts, promotions, fixation of pay scales and revision under the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules 1965 of the petitioner and others similarly situated employees of petitioner Karmachari Mandal forthwith. Rule is made absolute accordingly.” 11.5 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 11.2.2010 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No.23 of 2010, which read thus :- “Two questions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, viz. in the judgment, the learned Single Judge has extended the benefits to all members of the Union, wherein the petition was not on behalf of the Union. The petition was filed by individual petitioner. Suffice it to say that individual's petition is required to be confined for relief to the individual. If it becomes a petition for large number of people, then it has to be either in the form of Public Interest Litigation or some other form has to be adopted. Therefore, the relief could not be granted to those who were not parties to the proceedings. This is an agreed position. Therefore, the relief as granted by the learned Single Judge is limited only to petitioner in the case. To that extent, order of the learned Single Judge is altered. With regard to another submission that the employee was State Government employee. Suffice it to say that he was serving the Municipality. Therefore, primary responsibility is of the Municipality. They may in turn ask for reimbursement. To that extent, order of the learned Single Judge is altered. With regard to another submission that the employee was State Government employee. Suffice it to say that he was serving the Municipality. Therefore, primary responsibility is of the Municipality. They may in turn ask for reimbursement. Therefore, the second ground raised by the learned counsel has no force. We observe that the relief is granted to the respondent employee only, petitioner before the learned Single Judge, and payment will be made by the appellant. The appellant may seek reimbursement from the State Government. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, civil application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.” 11.6 The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8880 of 2012, which came to be dismissed by order dated 16.7.2013, which reads thus :- “Looking to the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in this Special Leave Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.” 11.7 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 8.10.2015 passed in the Special Civil Application No.1988 of 2014, paragraphs 26 to 35 which read thus :- “26. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Deputy Director, Municipality, State of Gujarat committed any error in passing the impugned order. 27. This is a fit case wherein each of the respondents should be held guilty of contempt. 28. Even after losing before the Supreme Court the stance of the respondents unfortunately remains the same. It is very depressing to note that an authority none other than the Deputy Director, Municipality has shown complete disregard for the orders passed by this Court time to time. While dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal No.23 of 2010 the Division Bench of this Court had made it abundantly clear that the primary responsibility would be of the Municipality and the Municipality may in turn ask for the reimbursement. 29. My attention is drawn by Mr. Vakil, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to a letter dated 4th October, 2011 addressed by the Jhalod Nagar Palika to the Deputy Director. 29. My attention is drawn by Mr. Vakil, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to a letter dated 4th October, 2011 addressed by the Jhalod Nagar Palika to the Deputy Director. A part of the letter reads thus:- “Shri Ashwinbhai A. Desai was in the C.P.F. Scheme from 14- 94 to 31395 and from 1495 to 30496 was in the G.P.F. Scheme. The necessary evidences and proofs of the same are enclosed herewith. The said Halol Nagar Panchayat, vide Notification dated 14494 issued by the State Government’s Urban Housing and Urban Development Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, was converted into Halol Municipal Borough from Halol Nagar Panchayat [Halol Nagar Panchayat]. In this manner, Zalod Nagar Palika and Halol Nagar Palika, in one or more context are on the same basis. The Halol Nagar Palika, prior to coming into effect of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, was a Gram Panchayat, i.e. it was fundamentally not a Nagar Palika under the provisions of the Bombay District Nagar Palika Act, 1901. The said Halol Nagar Panchayat had filed Special Civil Application No.1205/1978 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in which the Judgment and order was given by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in its favour. Against the same, the Government of Gujarat had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in which also the Judgment and order was given by the Hon’ble Court in favour of Halol Nagar Panchayat. As per the same, the employees of Zalod Nagar Panchayat are getting all the benefits that the enjoyed by the Government employees. In view of the above facts, it is requested to kindly ignore the technicalities of the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat along with the Judgment and Order dated 1122010 and it is requested to kindly sanction the pension case.” 30. There is a clear cut admission on the part of the Nagar Palika that the petitioner was in the CPF Scheme from 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 and thereafter from 1st April, 1995 to 30 April, 1996 was in the GPF Scheme. Along- with the letter the necessary evidence was also adduce in that regard. There is a clear cut admission on the part of the Nagar Palika that the petitioner was in the CPF Scheme from 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 and thereafter from 1st April, 1995 to 30 April, 1996 was in the GPF Scheme. Along- with the letter the necessary evidence was also adduce in that regard. The Nagar Palika also requested the Deputy Director to ignore the technicalities which were sought to be raised so far as the implementation of the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2008 and 11th February, 2010 respectively were concerned and had requested to sanction the pension. 31. Mr. Vakil has also brought to my notice a Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1983 with regard to giving pension benefits to the employees of the Gram/Nagar Panchayat converted from Nagar Palika. A part of the said resolution reads thus:- “5. The employees who are covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, shall have to give their option as to whether they wish to get the benefit of pension scheme or not. They shall have to give this option within a period of six months from the issuance of the orders. The employees who opt for the pension scheme shall have to pay back the amount of share of relevant Panchayat to the contributory fund as well as interest thereupon, which is credited in their current account and in case of a retired employee, he shall have to pay interest as specified for each year for the total period during which such amount has remained with him. Such an option once given, shall be final and binding. 6. If an employee does not give his option within the time limit specified, then it shall be presumed that the said employee is satisfied with his retirement benefits and he shall not be entitled to get pension benefits. 7. Out of the employees mentioned in para[ ] above, those who are presently in service, can also give their options within a period of six months. In such cases, the amount of contribution of the paychayat deposited in their account as well as the interest upon the same shall have to be deposited in the Government and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in his Provident Fund account. In such cases, the amount of contribution of the paychayat deposited in their account as well as the interest upon the same shall have to be deposited in the Government and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in his Provident Fund account. If a person does not give his option within the above referred period of six months, then it shall be presumed that such a person is satisfied with his present retirement benefits, that means such person is not wishing to get pension benefits. 8. If any employees dies after 112.69 during his service or if he dies after his retirement after 11269, in that case out of old retirement benefits and pension benefits, whichever is beneficial can be sanctioned for his family, after discussion and understanding with his family. 9. In all the cases of contributory provident fund, the share contributed by the Panchayat as well as all such interest, shall have to be deposited in the Government within a period of three months from the date of giving option for pension benefits. 10. All the employees covered under the pension benefits, Government employees of Taluka and District Panchayats, etc. shall have to be covered under the benefits of General Provident Fund Rules. 11. The normal retirement age applicable to the Government employees as well as Taluka and District Panchayat employees shall be applicable to all the employees. 12. In the cases of employees referred to hereinabove in [1], the papers of pension shall be prepared by the relevant converted Panchayat and shall be sent to the Accountant General, Ahmedabad through relevant District Development Officer. 2. Separate amendments shall be made in The Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules 1976 and the Gujarat Panchayat Service (General Provident Fund) Rules 1971. 3. This Resolution is being published after sanction from the Finance Department through its File No.NAPAM/1083/1330/A.152 dated 2-10-83.” 32. My attention is also drawn to a Government Resolution dated 22nd January, 1996 with regard to the grant of the pensionary benefits to the allocated employees of the Panchayat Service working in the converted Nagar Palika. The Resolution reads thus: “Preface: Because of 74th Constitutional amendment, 84 Nagar Panchayats of the State have been converted into Nagarpalika. As per Section266(1) of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 196, the employees of coverted Nagarpalika are entitled to get the salary, pension Provident Fund etc. which are payable to them. The Resolution reads thus: “Preface: Because of 74th Constitutional amendment, 84 Nagar Panchayats of the State have been converted into Nagarpalika. As per Section266(1) of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 196, the employees of coverted Nagarpalika are entitled to get the salary, pension Provident Fund etc. which are payable to them. For this, the State Govt. vide Govt. Resolution dt. 31.01.92 had made the pension scheme applicable to the employees prior to 1963, on the same basis, the Govt. had decided to apply to the employees prior to 1963 of Nagarpalika converted in 1994. Resolution Vide resolution of the Pancyat Department dt.17.10.83, it is resolved to grant pensionary benefits to the employees of converted Nagar Panchayat originally from Nagarpalika. Like wise the employees who are in the service of Ex- Nagarpalika as on 11296, which exNagarpalika had been coverted in Village Panchayat and now due to population it having been converted into Nagarpalika, such being in the service of the organization as on 11 296, and all such allocated employees having retired,expired after that date, are hereby ordered to be given the pensionary benefits vide resolution of the Panchayat Department dt. 17.10.83 by resolution. 2. The above resolution of 17.10.83, by resolution of 31192 mentioned at Sr.(3) above, has been made applicable to the coverted Nagarpalikas in 1986, on the very same basis, it is hereby resolved to give pensionary benefits to the converted Nagarpalika in 1994 but the allocated employees prior to 1963. (The Resolution dt.171083 and 31- 192 are hereby annexed in the schedule). 3. The proposal of the pension cases of the allocated employees of above Nagarpalikas retiring after 15494 shall have to be made to the Director of Municipalties, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. 4. The Concerned Local Authority after preparing the pension cases of the allocated employees of Converted Nagarpalika, the same have to be produced before the Director, Pension and Provident Fund, Ahmedabad through the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State and Regional Director, Rajkot. 5. These orders have been published in view of the approval received on the nothing/remarks of the Finance Department dt 4-1-96.” 33. Thus I more than convinced that the stance of the respondents is not only unreasonable and untenable in law but the same is contemptuous. 34. 5. These orders have been published in view of the approval received on the nothing/remarks of the Finance Department dt 4-1-96.” 33. Thus I more than convinced that the stance of the respondents is not only unreasonable and untenable in law but the same is contemptuous. 34. One last chance is given to the respondents to comply with the orders which have been passed time to time by this Court failing which each of the erring officer shall be held guilty for contempt. 35. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th November, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to sanction the pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules and the regulations with all consequential benefits from the date of the retirement with arrears at the rate of 8.5% interest per annum till the actual payment. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.” 11.8 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 25.9.2018 passed in the Special Civil Application No.13884 of 2011, which read thus :- “1. The petitioner by way of this petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India has sought pensionary benefits from the respondents. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was serving with the respondent No.2 Jhalod Nagar Palika as Octroi Clerk and has been superannuated on 31.03.2006. On 05.07.1965, the Jhalod Gram Panchayat was converted into Nagar Panchayat and on 05.04.1994, Nagar Panchayat converted into Nagar Palika. 3. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the Nagar Palika despite service of notice. 4. The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment given by this Court in Special Civil Application No.13563 of 1994 in which, similarly situated other clerks appointed by Gram Panchayat got superannuated on 30.09.1994. This Court while deciding in favor of the LRs of the deceased, held that the Legal Representatives of the deceased shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits, in accordance with rules and regulations with all consequential benefits from the date of retirement with arrears at the rate of 8.5% per annum of interest till the actual payment. 5. This Court while deciding in favor of the LRs of the deceased, held that the Legal Representatives of the deceased shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits, in accordance with rules and regulations with all consequential benefits from the date of retirement with arrears at the rate of 8.5% per annum of interest till the actual payment. 5. The case of the present petitioner is identical in all aspects to the aforementioned decision as the present petitioner is also appointed to the Gram Panchayat which has been converted into Nagar Panchayat and then to Nagar Palika. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the same terms as aforementioned decision. The retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule is made absolute. Order in Speaking to Minutes Date : 16/10/2018 Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGP Mr.Gohil for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Dipen K.Dave for the Respondent No.2. This speaking to minutes has been moved by the applicant. In this speaking to minutes, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that name of the petitioner in the cause title has been mentioned as Abdurrahim K.Jiva but in fact it was Abdurrahim I. Jiva. Mistake appears to be typographical and same be corrected. Name of the petitioner be read as Abdurrahim I.Jiva. This speaking to minutes stands disposed of accordingly.” 12. Considering the facts of the present case, as referred above and position of law as referred above, the case of the petitioners herein is squarely covered by the order rendered in the Special Civil Application No.13884 of 2011, as referred above, wherein identically placed employees of Jhalod Nagarpalika, who were appointed in the Jhalod Gram Panchayat which was reconstituted as “Nagar Panchayat" and then into “Nagarpalika”, by the said order were directed to be granted all the retiral benefits within a period of four weeks. The petitioners are also retired employees of Jhalod Nagarpalika and are required to be extended the same benefit as granted to identically placed employees in the Special Civil Application No.13884 of 2011. 13. The petitioners are also retired employees of Jhalod Nagarpalika and are required to be extended the same benefit as granted to identically placed employees in the Special Civil Application No.13884 of 2011. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein are held to be entitled to the pensionary benefits alongwith all the consequential benefits from the date of retirement of the petitioners with arrears at the rate of 8.5% interest p.a. till the actual payment is made. 14. In view thereof, the prayers as prayed for in the present petitions are granted exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the four captioned petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.