1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 7.12.2010 of respondent No.1 and further for a direction to the respondent authorities to release pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner at the earliest.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was serving as daily wager with the respondent No.1Municipality since 1975. He was made permanent on the sanctioned set up in the year 1991 and he retired from the service on 1.5.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner being an allocated employee of the Municipality he is entitled to pension as per Government Circular dated 28.11.1994.
2.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that after retirement he made several representations to the respondents to sanction his pension and pensionary benefits. However, vide impugned communicated dated 7.12.2010, the respondents have refused to grant pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he was recruited subsequent to conversion of the municipality. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chief Officer Vs. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch, reported in 2011 (1) GCD 569.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the said fact.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein in paragraph No.9 it has been held that: “9.The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily wager or a temporary employee of the Government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. On the contrary as per the policy of the Government, even if a person is an adhoc/temporary employee, after completion of requisite length of service, he is to be treated as eligible for the scheme of pension and once he is treated as eligible for the scheme of pension, and his contribution are being deducted from his salary, he would be eligible for the pension upon completion of the requisite length of service. Therefore, there is no absolute bar operating upon the entitlement of the pension by the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, who are treated as for all purposes covered by the scheme of pension for the contribution from their salary and same position continued until they reached to the age of superannuation or until the end of their service. “
6. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, I am of the view that the relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition is required to be granted, in view of the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Chief Officer Vs. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch (supra).
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is hereby allowed. The respondentauthorities are directed to grant the benefits Resolution dated 28.11.1994, passed by the respondent like granting of pension and pensionary benefits, etc. at par with the other Government employees. Rule is made absolute.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan