JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the captioned appeals and the challenge is also to the selfsame order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are at the instance of the State of Gujarat and are directed against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which His Lordship allowed the writ-applications of the original petitioner i.e. the respondent herein in these appeals. 2. The facts shortly stated are thus:- 3.1 The respondent herein-original petitioner is a registered Association duly recognised by the Government. The Association filed a writ-application being SCA No. 1681 of 2002 on behalf of 18 wire-men helpers, whereas SCA No. 1682 of 2002 was filed by the Association on behalf of 31 of their members working as Room Attendants (Class-III) and appointed in the work-charge category from daily rated workers. 3.2 The Association prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990, as arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3.3 The Association, in the alternative, prayed to read down the Government Resolution referred to above to the extent that it could be made applicable only with prospective effect to the daily rated workers who had joined after 5th January, 1990. 3.4 Thus, from the materials on record, it appears that SCA No. 1681 of 2002 was filed by the Association on behalf of 18 wire-men helpers, whereas SCA No. 1682 of 2002 was filed by the Association on behalf of the 31 Room Attendants (Class-III). It appears that all such employees were being treated as work-charge employees since 27th December, 1999, and all of a sudden, the State Government decided to revert such employees to the status of daily rated employees, which would have resulted in loss of five increments and several other service benefits. 3.5 The State Government framed a policy of conversion of daily rated employees to work-charge cadre on the basis of completion of five years of service, vide Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. 3.5 The State Government framed a policy of conversion of daily rated employees to work-charge cadre on the basis of completion of five years of service, vide Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. It appears from the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 that the daily wagers were engaged on nominal muster for the maintenance works under the Public Works Department. The State Government noticed that such daily wagers were working on a nominal muster since many years and were not getting any benefit of the employment. The State Government took up the issue of bringing such daily wagers on a work charge establishment with the sole object to see that such daily wagers may get some benefits out of the employment. After taking into consideration the relevant aspects it decided to first give preference to the daily wagers on certain terms and conditions at the time of recruitment as and when the question of filling up new vacancies on work charge establishment would arise, or the question of filling up the then existing vacancies would arise in the offices under the Public Works Department. 3.6 The employees for whom the Association filed the writ-applications were appointed between 1977 and 1987. In the meantime, the Government issued impugned Resolution dated 5th January, 1990, by which it revoked the earlier Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. 3.7 The State Government justified issuance of such Resolution of 1990 revoking its earlier Resolution of the year 1973, on the premise that vide its earlier Resolution dated 28th September, 1989, it decided to impose a complete ban on recruitment of fresh daily wagers. Vide Circular dated 31st March, 1989, instructions were also issued for not appointing daily wagers on work charge establishment. The Government realised that the two Resolutions dated 28th September, 1989 and 31st March, 1989 were creating lot of problems, and accordingly, it decided to cancel its earlier Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. All the employees had already completed five years of daily rated service prior to 5th January, 1990 i.e. the date on which the 1973 Resolution came to be revoked. 3.8 The Government realised that all the employees i.e. 31 Room Attendants and 18 Wiremen helpers were left out from the main seniority list for certain administrative reasons, and therefore, after taking into consideration such omission, decided to appoint the employees as work charge on 27th December, 1999. 3.8 The Government realised that all the employees i.e. 31 Room Attendants and 18 Wiremen helpers were left out from the main seniority list for certain administrative reasons, and therefore, after taking into consideration such omission, decided to appoint the employees as work charge on 27th December, 1999. 3.9 It appears from the materials on record that at a later stage the State Government passed an order against the employees, by which the benefits of the status of work charge given to them was ordered to be withdrawn vide order dated 2nd January, 2001. The employees apprehending reversion as work charge employees to daily rated employees, filed three writ-applications being SCA Nos. 12822 of 2000, 12825 of 2000 and 25 of 2001, challenging the withdrawal of the benefits which were granted to them on the strength of the Resolution of the year 1973, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 7th November, 2001 in the following terms:- 5. However, at this stage Mr. Sompura, learned advocate for the petitioners, has requested the Court to allow him to withdraw this petition in order to make a suitable representation to the State Government. Mr. Sompura states that the petitioners will make such representation latest by 30th November 2001 and in such representation the petitioners will highlight their grievances. The petitioners are accordingly permitted to make a representation to the State Government highlighting their grievances. After receiving such representation the State may dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. The State Government may give opportunity of personal hearing to the concerned employee or to the Union, which is representing the cause of such employees. It is clarified that the petitioners may represent their case either themselves or through union. The State may also afford a personal hearing either to the Union or to the concerned employee and thereafter take a decision on merits. If any hearing is given to the Union, it will not be obligatory on the part of the State Government to give hearing to the concerned employee. 6. The State may also afford a personal hearing either to the Union or to the concerned employee and thereafter take a decision on merits. If any hearing is given to the Union, it will not be obligatory on the part of the State Government to give hearing to the concerned employee. 6. It is clarified that it will be open to the State Government to take action against the erring officer who is responsible for giving such reckless instructions to the Executive Engineers as in view of the aforesaid reckless action of the concerned officer the State exchequer has suffered. 7. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case one way or the other. If the decision of the State Government is against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. 8. In view of what is stated, nothing further is required to be done in the matter and accordingly this group of petitions is disposed of. Notice is discharged in each of the matters. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated.” 3.10 Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, a representation was filed by the employees and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 29th January, 2002. 3.11 The employees being dissatisfied by such order passed by the State Government, thought fit to challenge the same and accordingly, two writ-applications were filed. The learned Single Judge allowed both the writ-applications taking a view that the State Government could not have reverted the employees from work charge to daily rated on the strength of the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990, because the benefits of the earlier Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 had already accrued in favour of the employees. The learned Single Judge took the view that since all the employees fulfilled the conditions as laid down by the State Government in its Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, they were entitled to receive such benefits, and such benefits could not have been withdrawn by another Resolution dated 5th January, 1990, giving a retrospective effect to the same. 3. Feeling dissatisfied, the State Government has come up with the present appeals. 4. Mr. Parth Bhatt and Ms. 3. Feeling dissatisfied, the State Government has come up with the present appeals. 4. Mr. Parth Bhatt and Ms. Vacha Desai, the learned AGPs appearing for the State Government submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in allowing the writ-applications filed by the employees by not appreciating an important question of fact that on 27th December, 1999 i.e. the date on which the benefits of 1973 Resolution were extended to the employees, the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 stood already revoked vide another Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990. According to the learned counsel for the State, when the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 was not in existence, then in such circumstances no benefits could have been granted in favour of the employees vide order dated 27th December, 1999. The Counsel for the State very vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990 could not have been operated with retrospective effect, but should have been given effect prospectively. 5. The learned Counsel also submitted that the members of the Association are already getting the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and in the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, there is no reference of any conversion from daily rated to work charge. The learned Counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the members of the Association were entitled for the consequential benefits according to the recommendations made in the Fifth Pay Commission and the Sixth Pay Commission, as in both the Pay Commissions, the cadre of the employees has not been included. It was submitted that in such circumstances referred to above, the appeals merit consideration and deserve to be allowed. 6. The appeals have been opposed by the respondent. Mr. K.B. Pujara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employees submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned. Mr. Pujara submitted that the approach of the learned Single Judge in the matter was absolutely correct and in accordance with law. Mr. Pujara submitted that his clients have not received any additional benefits i.e. the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Mr. Mr. Pujara submitted that the approach of the learned Single Judge in the matter was absolutely correct and in accordance with law. Mr. Pujara submitted that his clients have not received any additional benefits i.e. the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Mr. Pujara clarified that his clients have received the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 only, and therefore, the contention on behalf of the appellant that the employees cannot seek benefits of two Resolutions is not tenable in law. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Pujara prays that there being no merit in the appeals, they deserve to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the order impugned. 8. It appears from the materials on record that in the year 1973, the State Government noticed that the daily wage workers were engaged on a nominal muster roll for the maintenance works under the Public Works Department. Such daily wage workers had been working on the nominal muster past couple of years and no service benefits were admissible to such daily workers. Accordingly, the Government decided to consider providing them service benefits and for that purpose, treating them as eligible for appointment on the work charge establishment. After careful consideration, the Government decided to give priority to such daily wage workers, subject to certain conditions, as and when the issue of filling up of new posts on the work charge establishment or filling up vacancies created due to the then current posts falling vacant in the offices under the Public Works Department would arise. It appears that the Government decided to give priority to such daily wage workers, who had completed minimum five years of service as daily wage workers to be eligible for appointment on the work charge establishment. It is not in dispute that the employees herein had completed the minimum five years of service as daily wage workers. However, it appears that the employees herein, due to some administrative reasons, were left out from being extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, although several other workers identically situated were extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. 9. However, it appears that the employees herein, due to some administrative reasons, were left out from being extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, although several other workers identically situated were extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. 9. It is also not in dispute that the employees are fulfilling all the requisite conditions as prescribed by the Government in it's Resolution dated 4th July, 1973. At this stage, it would not be out of place to look into the stance of the State Government, as reflected from the affidavit-in-reply sworn in by one Rameshbhai Melsingbhai Vasava, Executive Engineer, Capital Project Division No. 1, Gandhinagar. In paragraph 6 of the reply, it has been stated as under:- “6. I say that from the date of granting of the said benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, all the respondents had been receiving their salaries, profits and benefits as provided in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. However, in the year 27.12.1999, due to a mistake the benefits granted as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were replaced by benefits as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1973, which had already been withdrawn and cancelled on 5.1.1990. On realising this mistake, the Government immediately sought to cancel the said order in the year 2002. However, due to pendency of litigation before this Honourable Court, benefits under Government Resolution dated 4.7.1973, are continued to be given to the respondents herein.” 10. The aforesaid stance of the State Government gets completely falsified by the materials on record. On the contrary, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that neither the respondents of LPA No. 1730 of 2011 (original petitioners of SCA No. 1682/02), nor the respondents of LPA No. 1743 of 2011 (original petitioners of SCA No. 1681 of 2002) have received double benefit, namely, benefit of Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 and Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. All the said respondents have received the benefit of Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 only. 11. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the State that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 could not have been given to the employees because the said Resolution was revoked by the State Government vide another Resolution dated 5th January, 1990. 11. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the State that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 could not have been given to the employees because the said Resolution was revoked by the State Government vide another Resolution dated 5th January, 1990. In our opinion, before the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990 came into force, the employees had already qualified themselves for the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, but for the mistake committed by the authorities, they should have been extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 along with the others. Having realised the mistake, the State authorities rightly decided to extend the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973, but thereafter, could not have withdrawn such benefits on the premise of the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 1990. To that extent, we are at one with the learned Single Judge and the view taken by the learned Single Judge is quite a reasonable view, which deserves to be upheld. 12. Having gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has taken pains to go through the entire record threadbare and after perusing the record, has reached to the conclusion that the decision to extend the benefits of Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1973 was with due application of mind. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to accept the submission on behalf of the State that the benefit was extended due to an inadvertent error. 13. We do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. 13. We do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. It appears that vide order dated 14th November, 2011 passed in Civil Application No. 11663 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court had stayed the execution, operation and implementation of the order which has been impugned in these appeals, on a condition that the Government shall deposit the amount of difference of pay according to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, with this Court within a period of six weeks. It also appears that the Division Bench directed that on the deposit of the requisite amount, the same should be invested by the Registry of this Court in the name of the Registrar, by way of a fixed deposit, with a nationalised bank, for a period of one year, with further directions to renew further till the final disposal of these appeals. It was also directed that the interest, which would accrue on the said deposit should be paid to the original petitioners i.e. the employees, and the principal amount on maturity should be paid to the party who would succeed in the appeals. 15. Since we have dismissed both the appeals, we direct that the requisite principal amount be paid to the respondent Association herein, within a period of four weeks from today. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. The Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 16. After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Pujara, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, brought to our notice that although there was a direction at the time of admission of the Appeals to pay the interest amount which would accrue from the fixed deposit in favour of the employees, the same has not been paid to the employees. 17. In such circumstances, we direct that the principal amount along with the interest shall be paid to the respondent-Association within a period of four weeks from today, if not paid. 18. At this stage, a request has been made by Mr. 17. In such circumstances, we direct that the principal amount along with the interest shall be paid to the respondent-Association within a period of four weeks from today, if not paid. 18. At this stage, a request has been made by Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the State, to stay the operation of our judgment and order to the extent it directs the Government to make the payment of the principal amount along with the interest till the date of realization. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of our judgment and order to the extent of our direction to make payment of the principal amount along with the interest, for a period of six weeks from today. Appeals dismissed.