1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 599/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4730 OF 2008 (Z.P. Amravati, through CEO vs. Ramesh s/o Pundlikrao Hirulkar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Raj Wakode, Advocate for the respondent. ….. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. JANUARY 31, 2011. Heard. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to pension in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 477 of 2009 delivered on 22nd March 2010, in which one of us is a party. There seems to be no dispute that the respondent in the present case Ramesh Fundlikrao Hirulkar is regularized in service by the same order dated 03.07.1982, as the employee in the case before the Division Bench i.e. D.R. Wadekar. We, therefore, see no reason as to why a different yardstick should be applied for the appellant in the present case. Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the appellant, however, tried to distinguish the respondent's case on 2 the ground that the respondent is not a Parishad's employee as defined by Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service Rules, 1968, which reads as follows : “Parishad employee” means a person appointed to a post in any District Service and includes an allocated employee:” There is no merit in this contention since Parishad employee means the employee of a Zilla Parishad. There is no separate entity called a Parishad. In any case, having regard to the fact that the services of the respondent / employee were regularized from 1982, even though he may have been on contract basis earlier, the respondent is entitled to all benefits including pension. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.