ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent-State. 2. By way of this, the petitioner, widow of the workman, employed with the respondents, seeks for the following prayers: “6(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) to hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not making payment of any pensionary benefits to the petitioner by counting her husband’s entire length of service from date of joining till date of his from i.e. 21.09.1981 till the date of his superannuation 31.03.2000 as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner by counting length of service by adding Sundays and public holidays. (ii) to hold and declare that the petitioner shall be paid all other benefits like Public Holidays, Transport Allowance, Medical Allowance, Group Insurance at par with the permanent employees. (iii) to hold and declare that petitioner is entitled to all other retiral benefits including benefit of leave encashment and difference of gratuity and be pleased to further direct the respondents to pay amount of leave encashment of leave standing in the account of the petitioners. (iv) to direct the respondents to pay pensionary benefits, gratuity amount, leave encashment and other benefits with 18% interest from the date when it fell due. (B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of her husband’s total length of service, i.e. 21.09.1981 until the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.03.2000 by adding Sundays and public Holidays. (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had worked with the respondents continuously for a period of 19 years and had retired on 31.03.2000, and whereas her late husband had subsequently passed away on 20.04.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband had neither been paid pensionary benefits nor other benefits including leave encashment etc. It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband had neither been paid pensionary benefits nor other benefits including leave encashment etc. more particularly as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner would submit that upon the petitioner making a representation through the Gujarat State Labour Federation, for grant of pension, the same had not been considered by the respondents, more particularly on the ground that the husband of the petitioner did not complete more than 240 days in last 10 years of the service, as per the requirement. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would draw the attention of this Court to the service book of the husband of the petitioner and would submit that while the husband of the petitioner had started working with the respondents from the year 1981-82, from the year 1991 till the year 1999-2000 i.e. the last 10 of service, except for the period between 1990-91, the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in all the years. Learned Advocate would submit that the only year during which, as per the service book of the husband of the petitioner, not completed 240 days, is the year 1990-91, wherein the late husband of the petitioner had only completed 178.5 days. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would rely upon a decision of a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 27.01.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 15601 of 2020, more particularly whereby the learned Co-ordinate Bench, has interpreted the number of days which an employee put in any year, along with the benefit of Sundays and other Public Holidays. Learned Advocate would submit that if the period of work done by the husband of the petitioner for the year 1990-91 had been calculated, adding the Sundays and other Public Holidays, then the husband of the petitioner would have completed 240 days during the said year also and the petitioner would have been entitled to pensionary benefits. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the above judgment, learned Advocate Mr. Dave would request this Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to grant benefit of pension and other emoluments to the petitioner. 5. This petition is vehemently object to by learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of the respondent-State. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the above judgment, learned Advocate Mr. Dave would request this Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to grant benefit of pension and other emoluments to the petitioner. 5. This petition is vehemently object to by learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned AGP would submit that the petition suffers from gross delay and whereas for reason itself, the petition deserves to be rejected by this Court. Learned AGP would submit that as such, husband of the petitioner had retired in the year 2000 and had expired in the year 2008 and whereas the petition is preferred in the year 2022 i.e. approximately 22 years after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner and 14 year after the demise of the husband of the petitioner. Learned AGP would submit that the claim of the petitioner being barred by delay and latches, this Court may not consider the present petition and may not grant the prayers as sought for. 6. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner and having regard to the details of the number of days for which the petitioner had worked, as could be discernible from the service of the petitioner, it would clearly appear that while the husband of the petitioner had been working as daily-rated employee with the respondent from 1981 and whereas from the year 1991 till the year 2000, the petitioner had un-disputably worked for more than 240 days per year. Furthermore, it would also be relevant to state that as far as the year 1998 is concerned, the petitioner appears to have worked for 178.5 days. Now, if one were to include Sundays and Public Holidays along with the number of days actually worked, then the service of the petitioner would probably be more than 240 days. Reliance is placed on the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, (1985) 4 SCC 71 , whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has inter-alia laid down that for calculating number of days in service as per Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, Sundays and Public Holidays have to be added. 8. 8. This Court also, at this stage, seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union and Others, (2019) 3 Scale 642 , paragraph 14 being relevant for the present purpose is quoted herein below for benefits: “14. It is not in dispute that the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2014 were under scrutiny by the Apex Court in the case of PWD and Forest Employees Union and Others (supra). The Supreme Court has held that the workmen, who complete 5, 10 and 15 years of service, are required to be placed in regular pay-scale and accordingly, they are also required to confer the pensionary benefits. The dispute with regard to applicability of the aforesaid resolutions to the daily wagers working in the various departments of the State of Gujarat, is no more res integra. Thus, the respondents are directed to confer the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 read with Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, which would be applicable to the petitioner’s case and accordingly, he shall be conferred all the benefits, including the pension and retirement benefits, which he would be entitled as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PWD and Forest Employees Union and Others (supra).” 9. From the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as noted herein above, it would clearly be discernible that an employee, who had joined service as a daily-rated employee, upon completing 10 years in service, where he has put in more than 240 days in each year would be entitled to the benefits of permanency and upon being rendered the benefits the employee is entitled to be treated at par with the employees who had been appointed on permanent basis through direct selection. Thus, it would appear that the case of the late husband of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered by the respondents in light of the observations as herein above, i.e. in line of the clear 9 years of the late husband having worked for more than 240 days in each year and one additional year where if Sundays and Holidays are added then probably late husband of the petitioner would have completed 10 years of service, which would entitle the late husband of the petitioner to the benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, including the benefits of pension, etc. 10. Insofar as the issue of delay is concerned, it requires to be mentioned that G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was a beneficial policy of the State Government, whereby the State Government intended to provide certain benefits including benefits of permanency to employees who had been originally appointed on daily-wage basis, who have completed at least 240 days in each of the year and should have worked for more than ten years with the employer. In the considered opinion of this Court, as far as grant of benefits under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was concerned, the onus was on the respondent State Government, more particularly since the workmen in all those cases would be Class-IV employees, who would neither have the legal understanding or financial stability to engage in litigation with the State. In the considered opinion of this Court, upon the State having formulated such beneficial policy it was the responsibility of the State to ensure the intended beneficiaries are passed on the benefits envisaged. Furthermore, since the petitioner is asking for dues of her late husband and whereas prima-facie to this Court, it would appear that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of pension, etc. which otherwise the State was bound to pay and whereas it would appear that the interest of the State could be protected by molding the reliefs appropriately. 11. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following directions: 11.1 The respondent No. 3 and 2 shall undertake the process of verifying the period of service completed by the late husband of the petitioner with the respondent and whereas upon such verification, the respondents shall ensure appropriate payment as per G.R. dated 17.10.1988 would be available to the petitioner as per the service rendered by her late husband. 11.2 The above exercise including payment of benefits shall be completed by respondents No. 3 and 2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this Court. 11.3 In case the petitioner is, in any way, aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, then it would be open for the petitioner to take appropriate recourse as available under the law. Needless to clarify that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and whereas the above observations are in aid of the final decision and whereas the respondents shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.