Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioners of this petition have prayed for the appropriate writ to direct the respondents to give benefits of the Government Life Insurance and Vehicle Allowance to the petitioners from the date, they are granted to the permanent employees. 2. The short facts of the case are that the members of the petitioner association for seeking monetary benefits at par with the permanent employee had preferred Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986. In the said Special Civil Application initially this Court vide order dated 31.12.1987 had granted adinterim relief in terms that the workmen should be paid salary and other allowances on the same basis as permanent workmen. Thereafter the said Special Civil Application was further heard and ultimately vide order dated 26.3.1998 this Court has maintained the earlier order, more particularly in view of the fact that the earlier order dated 31.12.1987 was carried by the Government before the Letters Patent Appeal Bench, but the said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. For ready reference the order passed in the Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986 dated 26.3.1998 is reproduced hereinbelow. “2. The petitioner, Gujarat Rajya Jaher Bandhkam Karigar and Majoor Mandal, filed this special civil application before this Court and prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to pay the regular pay scale and allowances from the date of joining the services and other benefits that regular Class IV employees of the State Government get and absorb the members of the petitionerassociation named in annexure `A’ on permanent basis and also pay 12% interest of the difference of the local dues or arrears. 3. On 31st December, 1987, this Court granted the interim relief in terms: “It is directed that the workmen mentioned above be paid salary and other allowances on the same basis as permanent workmen. It is clarified that it will be open to the respondents to pray for modification of this order, on the basis that some of the workmen mentioned in the aforesaid annexure to the petition are no longer in actual service.” The order of this Court dated 31st December, 1987 has been challenged by the respondents by filing the Letters Patent Appeal and the learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the L.P.A. has been dismissed. In pursuance of the interim relief granted by this Court, the members of the petitioner association named in annexure ‘A’ are being given the regular pay scale by the respondents and they are enjoying that benefit for all these years. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement before this Court that in pursuance of the Government resolution dated 17th October, 1988 the persons named in annexure ‘A’ have been given the pay in the regular pay scale of the concerned post with all other benefits as enumerated under the said resolution. These benefits have been given from 17th October, 1988. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the persons named in annexure ‘A’ were not entitled for the regular pay scale and other benefits as they were daily wagers. 6. However, this contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is of no substance as the learned Counsel for the respondents does not dispute that in pursuance of the Government resolution dated 17th October, 1988, the daily wagers named in annexure ‘A’ have already been given the benefits of regular pay scale etc.. Only dispute now remains of the benefits given to the persons named in annexure ‘A’ of the pay scale etc. for the period from 31st December, 1987 to 16 t h October, 1988 under Court’s order. 7. In view of the fact that these benefits have been given to the persons named in annexure ‘A’ in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 31st December, 1987 which has been affirmed in L.P.A. also and coupled with the fact that the Government itself has decided to give the benefits of regular pay scale etc. to all daily wage employees of the Department concerned, which is inclusive of the respondent Department herein under the resolution dated 17th October, 1988, now nothing substantial survives in this case. Even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is accepted still it cannot be said to be an appropriate case where the benefits which have been given to the persons named in annexure ‘A’ under this Court’s order dated 31st December, 1987 as affirmed in L.P.A. for the refund thereof. Even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is accepted still it cannot be said to be an appropriate case where the benefits which have been given to the persons named in annexure ‘A’ under this Court’s order dated 31st December, 1987 as affirmed in L.P.A. for the refund thereof. These are the low paid employees and even if it is taken that they would not have been entitled for that benefits still the order of recovery of the said benefits may not be just and proper. 8. This special civil application is disposed of in the terms that the persons named in annexure ‘A’ shall be entitled for the pay in the regular pay scale from the date from which those benefits have been given to them in pursuance of this Court’s order dated 31st December, 1987. However, it is made clear that as the benefits of the regular pay scale etc. have been given the persons named in annexure ‘A’ under the interim relief of this Court and as such on the basis of that benefit any person junior to them will not be entitled for claiming the parity from the date from which these persons have been given the benefits. The special civil application and rule stand disposed of subject to the aforesaid directions with no order as to costs. (Emphasis supplied) 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the specific direction issued by this Court, the petitioners were paid salary and all other allowances at par with the permanent workmen, but have not been paid vehicle allowance of Rs. 100/- p. m.. It is further case of the petitioners that the Government Insurance Scheme deduction of Rs. 25/- p. m. has also not been paid and it is in these circumstances the present petition. 4. I have heard Mr. Shaukat A. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 5. As such, there cannot be any dispute about the order dated 26.3.1998 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986, more particularly, when the said order of this Court is not modified/reversed by any higher forum, therefore, the order of this Court has got to be implemented. H.S. Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 5. As such, there cannot be any dispute about the order dated 26.3.1998 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986, more particularly, when the said order of this Court is not modified/reversed by any higher forum, therefore, the order of this Court has got to be implemented. The only contention raised by the learned AGP was that the members of the petitioner association whose names were there in the list at Annexure A as referred to in the above referred order, were not in the setup of the Government as permanent employees and, therefore, they would not be entitled to the allowance or the deduction towards the Insurance Scheme. 6. In my view, the contention can be bifurcated into two parts; one can be for entitlement to get vehicle allowance and another could be for deduction in the Insurance Scheme. So far as former is concerned, there was specific direction of this Court to pay salary and other allowance and consequently, vehicle allowance of Rs. 100/- to the concerned employees was payable and if not paid, has got to be paid and it does not lie in the mouth of the Government that since they are not in the setup of permanent workmen, vehicle allowance is not payable. 7. At this stage, it can be recorded that if the comparison is made to the salary slip at Annexure-C for the payment to the members of the petitioner association with salary slip of other employees, who were in permanent setup as per Annexure-D, it is clear that vehicle allowance of Rs. 100/- was being paid and the deduction of Rs. 25/- towards Insurance Scheme was being made. Since there is nonpayment of vehicle allowance as contended by the petitioner which has not been disputed by the respondent, the appropriate direction deserves to be issued for payment of vehicle allowance. The aforesaid would take care of the first aspect. 8. However, on the second facet of the contention for payment of Rs. 25/- towards Insurance Scheme, there is substance in the contention of the respondent inasmuch as this Court has only directed for payment of salary and other allowances which would result into positive action to be undertaken by the Government to the members of the petitioner association as workmen and employees. 25/- towards Insurance Scheme, there is substance in the contention of the respondent inasmuch as this Court has only directed for payment of salary and other allowances which would result into positive action to be undertaken by the Government to the members of the petitioner association as workmen and employees. However, there were no specific direction for deduction of the amount towards Insurance Scheme. Under these circumstances, if the deduction of Rs. 25/- is not made, the petitioner cannot assert that Rs. 25/- in view of the deduction of the Government Scheme be paid to them. In my view, interpreting the direction of this Court in the earlier litigation would not mean the negative action or the deduction to be paid from the salary at par with the other permanent employees. 9. Mr. H.S. Soni, learned AGP did contend that as per the judgment of this Court dated 26.3.1998 in Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986, the benefits were to be conferred to the employees, who were in service. The said aspect is clear at para6 and, therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner cannot contend the conferment of the benefits even for the vehicle allowance to the employees, who were not in service at the relevant point of time. 10. In my view, the said contention is ill founded, inasmuch as direction at para6 of the above referred is clear to the extent that the persons whose names were there at Annexure A, they were to be paid the benefit from 31.12.1987 to 16.10.1988. Accordingly, the amount of vehicle allowance shall be payable by giving the same treatment of their salary and other allowance as was given by the respondent pursuant to the above judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, it is directed that the respondent shall pay vehicle allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- p. m. for the respective period to the members of the petitioner association whose names were mentioned in the list at Annexure A referred to in Special Civil Application No. 5086 of 1986 provided that they were in service at the relevant point of time. The aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order of this Court. The other relief for deduction of Rs. The aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order of this Court. The other relief for deduction of Rs. 25/- towards Insurance Scheme does not deserve to be granted. 12. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.