ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Shikha Panchal on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State. 1.1. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Panchal tenders a draft amendment. The same is granted. To be carried out during the course of the day. 1.2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action on part of the respondent no.2 in not issuing Form-22 in terms of Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, allowing the petitioner to claim pension and gratuity, as illegal and bad in law; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to issue Form-22 to the petitioner, in terms of Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, thereby releasing his first claim towards pension and gratuity; (C) Pending admission and final hearing of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue Form-22 to the petitioner in terms of Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed in the month of August, 1989 as a Peon-cum-Driver at the office of District Supply Officer, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar on a fixed monthly pay of Rs.1800/- and the petitioner was appointed for 29 days in a month with an artificial break of one day. 3.1. It appears that vide an order dated 18.12.1990, the petitioner’s services were terminated resulting in the petitioner challenging the same before the learned Labour (LCH) No.741/1996. It appears that vide Award dated 15.02.1999, the learned Labour Court had allowed the reference and whereas the petitioner was directed to be reinstated on his original post with backwages. 3.2. 3.1. It appears that vide an order dated 18.12.1990, the petitioner’s services were terminated resulting in the petitioner challenging the same before the learned Labour (LCH) No.741/1996. It appears that vide Award dated 15.02.1999, the learned Labour Court had allowed the reference and whereas the petitioner was directed to be reinstated on his original post with backwages. 3.2. The respondent – District Supply Officer being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Labour Court had challenged the same before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.1570/2000 and whereas vide order dated 15.03.2000 a learned Coordinate Bench had stayed the order of backwages and whereas it would appear that later on, the matter had been referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat vide order dated 31.10.2001 had ordered that the petitioner be paid 25% backwages and whereas 75% backwages was waived by the petitioner. 3.3. It appears that the petitioner was reinstated in service in the interregnum on 11.04.2000 and had continued as such till he reached the age of retirement. It would further appear that the petitioner, upon reinstatement, had been placed in regular pay scale of 2550-55-2660-60-3200 and whereas, the petitioner had been paid revision of pay as available to a regular employee. It would further appear that upon the petitioner reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022, the respondents had finalized the pension papers of the petitioner based upon the last pay received by the present petitioner and whereas, since Form-22 as per Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 had not been released by the competent authority, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present petition with the prayers mentioned as noted hereinabove. 3.4. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that while from the documents it appears that the pension case of the petitioner had been finalized and whereas except for Form-22 not being released, the petitioner would have been paid all the retiral dues as well as pension, yet, it also appears that vide an order dated 12.05.2023, the District Supply Officer/Resident Additional Collector had rejected the request of the petitioner for release of Form-22 more particularly noting that the petitioner was not a regular employee. 3.5. 3.5. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No.19042/2017, decided on 07.05.2019) as referred to in later decision of Talsibhai Dhanjibai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No.20185/2018, decided on 18.10.2019) more particularly whereby this Court had while interpreting Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 had inter alia observed that even temporary or uninterrupted services or interrupted services in a pensionable establishment would entitle an employee to seek for pension. 4. Learned advocate Ms.Panchal on behalf of the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to a communication issued by the District Treasury Office, Sabarkantha dated 21.12.2023 produced by way of a draft amendment and submit that as such, the pension case of the petitioner had been finalized and whereas, but for the fact that the respondents had not released Form-22, the petitioner would have been paid all retiral benefits. Learned advocate would submit that since Form-22 is with regard to no departmental inquiry/judicial proceedings against the present petitioner and whereas since as such, there are no proceedings pending, the respondents were under an obligation to issue Form-22 and whereas upon issuance of the same, the petitioner would receive pension and other retiral benefits. 5. As against the same, it has been contended by learned AGP Mr.Trivedi that non-issuance of Form-22 is not on account of there being any departmental inquiry/judicial proceedings against the present petitioner, rather as would be evident from a perusal of the communication dated 12.05.2023, Form-22 had not been released since the petitioner was not a regular employee and whereas according to learned AGP, there was no requirement of Form-22 for a temporary employee as observed by the authority concerned. 5.1. Learned AGP has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and would submit that while the petitioner had been appointed as a temporary worker in the year 1989, after his termination, when the petitioner had been reinstated in the month of April, 2000, he was, due to some inadvertence reinstated on a regular pay scale and whereas the petitioner also appears to have been granted benefit of revision etc. Learned AGP would submit that, that by itself would not entitle the petitioner to claim that he was a regular employee more particularly since there is no decision on record which would justify payment of regular salary, more particularly, according to learned AGP there being no decision of the respondents whereby the petitioner was regularized in service. 5.2. Learned AGP would submit that the petitioner having been appointed as a temporary employee, subsequent to his reinstatement, was required to be appointed as such and whereas since some mistake has been committed at the end of the respondents, advantage thereof should not be given to the employee in question. 6. As against the same, learned advocate Ms.Panchal would submit that even if the petitioner is treated as a temporary employee, as per the law laid down by this Court in case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal (supra) followed in case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra), the petitioner would not be entitled to pension considering that he had worked as a temporary worker in a pensionable establishment. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 7.1. While it would appear that the petitioner, at the time of retirement, had been paid salary in the regular pay scale along with the benefits of revision as a regular employee would be entitled to, yet, it would also appear that in the interregnum i.e. after the petitioner had been reinstated in service, there was no decision on the part of the respondents to have regularized the services of the petitioner. That being the position, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned AGP Mr.Trivedi more particularly relying upon the affidavit-in-reply that payment of salary in regular scale was an inadvertence. 7.2. Be that as it may, it would appear that since the petitioner had worked from the year 1989 on a temporary establishment, therefore, the case of the petitioner would stand covered as per the law laid down by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra) wherein the learned Coordinate Bench had referred to an earlier decision in case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal (supra) whereby the learned Coordinate Bench had interpreted Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. Paragraph Nos. Paragraph Nos. 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 6 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “5. In Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 19042 of 2017 decided on 7.5.2019 similar issue came up for consideration. The claim of the petitioner for pension etc. was opposed on the ground that petitioner's services were ad hoc. 5.1 Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, deals with the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. This rule 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) ….. to (ix) …. 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 emphasise 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 In view of the above Rule-25 of Pension Rules 2002, temporary services are liable to be counted as pensionable. Even though the petitioner served as ad hoc for 30 years and 9 months, he was on the regular establishment entitled to get his services to be treated as pensionable. 5.3 In view of the above Rule-25 of Pension Rules 2002, temporary services are liable to be counted as pensionable. Even though the petitioner served as ad hoc for 30 years and 9 months, he was on the regular establishment entitled to get his services to be treated as pensionable. Rule 25 in terms says that qualifying service for pension include even interpreted services. Therefore, short breaks of 26 days and 5 months during the tenure of the services of the petitioner, would be in no way impead in counting the services of the petitioner to qualify as pensionable services. 6. As a result of the above discussion, 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 services of 30 years and 9 months 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 to the petitioner pension regularly alongwith other retirement dues admissible and payable to him. The arrears which may arise to be paid shall be paid within further period of two months.” 7.3. It would also appear, as submitted by learned advocate Ms.Panchal, that the decision in case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra) had neither interfered with the Hon’ble Division Bench nor by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. In this view of the matter, irrespective of whether the petitioner received salary in regular pay scale or not, for the period which the petitioner had worked from 1989 till regular superannuation in the month of April, 2022, the petitioner would be entitled to pension and all other retiral benefits as laid down by this Court. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the petition deserves consideration and whereas, the petition is hereby succeed and the following directions are passed:- (i) The decision of the respondents not to pay pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner pension and other retiral benefits as the petitioner would be entitled to more particularly for having worked between August, 1989 to April, 2022 on temporary establishment. (ii) The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner pension and other retiral benefits as the petitioner would be entitled to more particularly for having worked between August, 1989 to April, 2022 on temporary establishment. (ii) The above exercise shall be undertaken and concluded by the respondents within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order and whereas disbursement shall be done to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. 9. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.