JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is directed against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the captioned writ petition filed by the present appellant - Panchmahal District Panchayat, assailing the order dated 01.01.2020, passed by the Labour Court at Godhra in Recovery Application (C-2) No.92 of 2008. 2. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court has granted the benefit of pension to the respondent – workman. After he was granted the benefits arising from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the respondent-workman filed the Recovery Application seeking the benefit of pension from 30.09.2003, i.e, the date when he took the voluntary retirement. The Labour Court has held that as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, on completion of 10 years continuous service, a daily-wager like the present respondent-workman is entitled to get the benefit of pension. It was held that in fact, the respondent-workman did not tender his resignation but, he has already retired from service, as he was ill and suffering from paralysis. Accordingly, the Labour Court has allowed the application and directed the present appellant-Panchmahal District Panchayat to grant all pensionary benefits to the respondent-workman from 30.09.2003. 3. The same was assailed by the appellant - Panchmahal District Panchayat before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after placing reliance on the judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.2676 of 2021, on an analogous issue, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant - Panchmahal District Panchayat. 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the appellant - Panchmahal District Panchayat, has submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since, the respondent-workman has not worked for 240 days continuously. It is submitted that he was granted benefit of fix-pay by placing him in the lowest of payscale with effect from 01.12.1989 and thereafter with effect from 01.12.1994, as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that the earlier services rendered by him as a daily-wager between the year 1979 to 1984, cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. It is submitted that the earlier services rendered by him as a daily-wager between the year 1979 to 1984, cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. It is also submitted that the respondent-workman had tendered the resignation and hence, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Anantanand J.Singh appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with, as the issue is squarely covered by the various judgments of this Court. It is submitted that it is settled legal proposition that a daily-wager, who has completed 10 years of service continuously is entitled to pension, as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He has placed reliance on the order dated 24.03.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1736 of 2020 and the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.36 of 2018 and allied matters. 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that since, the respondent-workman had suffered paralysis, he tendered an application dated 26.06.2000, seeking voluntary retirement. A bare perusal of the caption of the application recommends that he has tendered voluntary retirement. Accordingly, in the said letter dated 26.06.2000, the respondent-workman has mentioned that his voluntary resignation may be accepted. Thus, the intention of the respondent-workman was to voluntarily retire from the services, as he was ill and suffering from paralysis. The respondent-workman has thus, categorically mentioned his illness in the said communication dated 26.06.2000. 7. Accordingly, by the communication dated 30.09.2003, the Executive Engineer has specifically permitted the respondent-workman to voluntarily retire from the service. The said order dated 30.09.2003 also explicitly mentions that he is ordered to be voluntarily retired and hence, the contention raised before us regarding the resignation of the respondent-workman does not merit acceptance, as both the documents, as mentioned hereinabove, categorically establish that the respondent-workman has voluntarily retired from service with effect from 30.09.2003. 8. The said order dated 30.09.2003 also explicitly mentions that he is ordered to be voluntarily retired and hence, the contention raised before us regarding the resignation of the respondent-workman does not merit acceptance, as both the documents, as mentioned hereinabove, categorically establish that the respondent-workman has voluntarily retired from service with effect from 30.09.2003. 8. Since, the respondent-workman was not paid pensionary benefits, after he was granted the benefit of regular pay scale arising out of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988, he filed Recovery Application (C-2) No.92 of 2008, and accordingly, the Labour Court, after examining the relevant facts and his service records, has directed the appellant- Panchmahal District Panchayat to pay all pensionary benefits by considering their Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and also the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.36 of 2018 and allied matters, as referred hereinabove. 9. On an analogous issue, there are various judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, and the issue of grant of pension to the daily-wagers in light of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is no more res integra. The Division Bench in the order dated 10.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.36 of 2018 and allied matters, has observed thus: 2.00. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 12350/2016, 12351/2016 and 17345/2016, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications preferred by the private respondents – original petitioners and has observed, held and directed that the services rendered by the concerned employees/workmen rendered as daily wager shall be counted/considered for counting pensionable service, common appellants – State of Gujarat and others have preferred present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3.00. We have heard Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants herein and Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners. 3.01. It appears that all the original petitioners, as such, were working as daily wages since 1977. Services of all of them were regularized on completion of 5 years as a daily wager i.e. considering 5 years in which they worked for not less than 240 days in a year. Their services were regularized as per Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 in the year 2004. Services of all of them were regularized on completion of 5 years as a daily wager i.e. considering 5 years in which they worked for not less than 240 days in a year. Their services were regularized as per Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 in the year 2004. All of them retired on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates. However, all of them were denied pension/pensionery benefits on the ground that they have not completed 10 years pensionable service from the date of their regularization i.e. 1/12/2004. Therefore, all the original petitioners approached the learned Labour Court by way of Recovery Applications. However, all the Recovery Applications came to be dismissed on the ground that there was no prior adjudication. Therefore, the original petitioners preferred the present Special Civil Applications before the learned Single Judge requesting to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court rejecting the Recovery Applications and also praying for appropriate Writ, Order and/or Direction directing the State Authorities to count/consider the past services rendered by the original workmen as daily wager for the purpose of pensionable service.” 10. In light of the settled legal proposition, we are not inclined to disturb either the award passed by the Labour Court or the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails. The same is dismissed.