JUDGMENT : G.R UDHWANI, J. The petitioner prays inter alia for the following reliefs: “20(A). Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents Authorities to consider the period of service rendered by the petitioner of 2 years, 2 months and 22 days and be condoned the break for the period commencing from 25.2.1972 to 29.9.1989 and both these period be included in the length of service of the petitioner for pensionary benefit and consequently be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith fix the pension and grant consequential benefits accordingly and also be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned decision at Annexure D.” 2. The petitioner was initially working as Statistician since 04/12/1969 in Sindh Prant of Pakistan. After the break-out of war between India and Pakistan in 1971, he had to leave his place Chachro District Tharparkar, Pakistan with effect from 25/02/1972 with the family and came to India with effect from 01/04/1972. The petitioner has been recorded as refugee in the office of Foreigner Registration at Badmer (Rajasthan) and with effect from 1978, he started to reside at Diyodar of Banaskantha District of State of Gujarat. He was granted Indian citizenship. 3. It is stated that in pursuance to the policy of the State Government, the petitioner as refugee came to be employed vide office order dated 28/09/1989. The petitioner insisted for appointment in Class-I post; however he was offered the appointment in Class-III post on 28/09/1989. It is the case of the petitioner that he rendered two years, two months and 22 days service in Pakistan and after serving for 11 years, pursuant to his employment by office order dated 28/09/1989, he superannuated with effect from 30/09/2000 on attaining the age of 58 years. The authorities considered only 11 years for retiral benefits. He, therefore, made representations dated 25/09/2000, 18/06/2001 and 12/12/2003 as well as 29/08/2004. The petitioner in the representations claimed that the services rendered by him in Pakistan and the break in service between 25/02/1972 and 29/09/1998 as well as 11 years service rendered by him as afore-stated should be considered as the length of service for the purpose of his retiral dues. It is his case that in case of several similarly situated persons, the aforesaid similar periods have been taken into consideration as a length of service for retiral benefits. It is his case that in case of several similarly situated persons, the aforesaid similar periods have been taken into consideration as a length of service for retiral benefits. The petitioner's representation was however rejected on 25/11/2004. He, therefore, filed a petition being SCA NO. 1990 of 2005 which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 01/09/2006. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition praying for the above reliefs. 4. The petitioner relies upon various similar instances produced with Annexure-F to the petition. He also placed reliance upon the government policy contained in various resolutions. The petitioner has also referred to various petitions filed by other similarly situated persons being SCA No. 10207 of 1995 as well as SCA No. 8630 of 1994 and the orders passed therein with the contention that while the case of the similarly situated persons was favourably considered, the petitioner has been discriminated against. 5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed opposing the petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the letter of appointment dated 28/09/1989 and would contend that at the time of appointment itself a note was taken in the order that the petitioner was a refugee and was appointed as a special case. 7. Learned Counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in the case of Vishandas Gangaram Khatri v. the Union of India (SCA No. 8630 of 1994) who according to learned Counsel for the petitioner was similarly situated and the services rendered by him in Pakistan as well as break in service which occurred on account of his taking refuge in India and until the appointment was given to him as also the service rendered by the said V.G Khatri in India were taken into account as a length of service for extending the retiral dues. He also invited the attention of this Court to case of Maganpuri K. Goswami v. The State of Gujarat, (SCA No. 10207 of 1995) decided on 23/04/1999 wherein directions similar to the case of V.G Khatri was given by this Court. 8. Reliance was also placed upon the resolution dated 17/04/1967 reciting the policy of the State Government under which the similar cases are required to be considered. 8. Reliance was also placed upon the resolution dated 17/04/1967 reciting the policy of the State Government under which the similar cases are required to be considered. Learned Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 31/03/1984 whereby the employees referred to in the order passed in case of V.G Khatri were extended similar benefits as the petitioner has prayed in the present petition. Learned Counsel also referred to the resolution dated 18/10/1995 whereby V.G Khatri was also extended the similar benefits. Learned Counsel also relied upon the photo identity card of the petitioner to submit that the said identity card evidences the services rendered by the petitioner in Pakistan and therefore the respondents have no reason to doubt the credentials of the petitioners. Learned Counsel therefore urged this Court to allow the petition. 9. Learned AGP invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply and the documents produced therewith. He would contend that the petitioner has failed to produce acceptable evidence or record regarding the services as Statistician, Class-I in Pakistan He would also contend that the petitioner has been inconsistent as regards the dates of his service in Sindh Pakistan. It is pointed out that in SCA No. 1990 of 2005 he stated that he was posted as Junior Clerk in Directorate of Agricultural of Hyderabad in August, 1969 and came to his home town on 25/01/1972 to enjoy the leave and thereafter the petitioner could not go back to his service place because of the war and that he migrated with family on 01/04/1972 to India. Whereas, in his application dated 29/08/2004 he has stated that he was serving as Statistician, Class-I post with effect from 04/12/1969 and due to war he had to leave the place and migrated to India with effect from 01/04/1972 after having been compelled to do so on 25/02/1972. 10. It is also contended that after having migrated to India on 25/02/1972, the petitioner applied for the job in India only in 1988 and got it in 1989 and that there is no policy of condoing the huge gap of 17 years. It was also contended while relying upon the resolution dated 30/03/1990 that no concessions are available to the displaced persons who had migrated after 23/03/1971. 11. It was also contended while relying upon the resolution dated 30/03/1990 that no concessions are available to the displaced persons who had migrated after 23/03/1971. 11. While referring to the resolution dated 31/03/1984 whereby the break in service and counting previous service rendered in Pakistan by four Primary Teachers namely Shri R.K Bhanani, P.M Sodha, M.D Oza and R.C Sodha was regularized, it was contended that these cases were individual cases and not a general policy of the government. It is also submitted that in case of V.G Khatri, the ori ginal file or papers relating to certain orders issued by Education Department were not available and therefore the facts of that cases could not be compared with the present case. 12. As regards the case of Shri M.K Goswami, it is contended that the order was passed mainly on the basis of the directions in the order dated 24/02/1995 issued by the High Court in SCA No. 8630 of 1994. It was argued that in that case the service rendered in Pakistan between 15/06/1955 to 31/01/1972 by Shri Goswami were considered as length of service for the purpose of pension. 13. Having gone through the facts in case of V.G Khatri, it appears that the petitioner is similarly situated to him. It would be beneficial to reproduce the entire order passed in case of V.G Khatri for ready reference: “1. The petitioner's case is that he was a resident of village Chachro, District Tharparkar in Pakistan which forms part of Pakistan since 14th August 1947. During the Indo-Pak Conflict in the year 1971, a portion of Tharparkar was occupied by the Indian Army and the area was under the control of Indian Army till 22nd December 1972. 2. It is the case of the pettioner that some of the Hindus who were residents of this area migrated to India while the Muslims of this area went back to Pakistan when the area was handed over to Pakistan, following the Simla Pact of 1972. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was in the service of Pakistan Government from 16th August 1952 to 16th February 1972 and following the outbreak of the Indo-Pak Conflict in 1971, the petitioner left his job from Thatta (Sind) on 17th February 1972 and joined his family at Chachro on 19th February 1972. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was in the service of Pakistan Government from 16th August 1952 to 16th February 1972 and following the outbreak of the Indo-Pak Conflict in 1971, the petitioner left his job from Thatta (Sind) on 17th February 1972 and joined his family at Chachro on 19th February 1972. The petitioner was appointed as Patwari-cum-clerk on 22nd February 1972 by the Civil Administrator, Chachro and whereas the situation in Pakistan was surcharged against Hindus and Hindu employees, the petitioner was obliged to stay in India. The petitioner goes on stating that he was able to bring his service record from the office of the D.S.P, Thatta (Sind) in Pakistan. When the aforesaid area was handed over back to Pakistan, he was relieved from the duties of Patwari-cum-clerk by the Civil Administrator, Chachro on 22nd December 1972. The petitioner, thus, Served for about 10 months as Patwari-cum-clerk under the Civil Administrator, Chachro, in the occupied area at a pay of Rs.110/- plus usual allowances per month. A copy of the certificate dated 21-12-1972 issued by the Civil Administrator, occupied territory, Gadra Road, relieving the petitioner from his duties of Patwari-cum-clerk with Civil Administrator, Chachro has been annexed with the petition at Annexure-E. According to the petitioner, the policy of the Government of India existing at that time was that the ex-employees of the Sind and Frontier Provinces from Pakistan were to be absorbed in the Government employment corresponding to the grades which they held in Pakistan. Ever since 1947, the State of Bombay and after bifurcation in 1960, the State of Gujarat has formulated the policy to count the service of the employees in the erstwhile Sind Provinces for the purpose of terminal benefits. After having been relieved by the Civil Administrator, Chachro on 22ndDecember 1972, the petitioner made efforts to get employment in the State of Gujarat as well as in the Union of India and he made a number of representations to the Union of India as well as State of Gujarat. A number of persons who have been displaced from Pakistan during the 1971 Indo-Pak Conflict had been appointed by the Govt. A number of persons who have been displaced from Pakistan during the 1971 Indo-Pak Conflict had been appointed by the Govt. of Gujarat during the period from 1972 to 1974, but the petitioner could not get any employment for a considerable period of 5 years and, ultimately, he, along with three others observed hunger strike before the Legislative Assembly at Gandhinagar and thereafter, Government of Gujarat issued directions for their appointment, by Resolution No. EST/1081/549/S dated 5th October, 1987. 3. The petitioner joined the office of the D.S.P, Banaskantha, Palanpur on 28th October, 1987 and within a period of three years thereafter, he attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service on 31st December 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that no pension or any retiral benefits or gratuity has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he Served in Pakistan from 16thAugust 1952 to 16th February 1972, i.e, for a period of 19 years and 6 months and from 22nd February 1972 to 22nd December 1972, he Served in the occupied area by India at Chachro, i.e, for a period of 10 months and thereafter he has Served with the D.S.P, Banaskantha, Palanpur under the Gujarat Government from 28th October, 1987 to 31st December 1990, i.e, for a period of 3 years, 2 months and 4 days. The petitioner, thus, claims to have Served in all, 23 years, 6 months and 9 days. When the repeated requests made by the petitioner for grant of pension, gratuity etc. did not yield any result, he preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6559 of-1990 in this High Court, based on the policy outlined by the Government of Gujarat, vide Resolution No. DPP-1166/141-R dated 17th April 1967, according to which, the previous service rendered by the displaced persons in erstwhile Sind and Frontier Provinces in Pakistan was to be taken into account and the break in service due to their displacement was to be condoned. The petitioner has stated that Shri R.K Bhanani, Shri P.M Sodha, Shri M.D Oza, Shri R.C Sodha and Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal, who too have since retired from service have been given the retiral benefits condoning the break in service, by Government of Gujarat vide Resolution No. PRE/ 1383.K dated 31st March 1984. The petitioner has stated that Shri R.K Bhanani, Shri P.M Sodha, Shri M.D Oza, Shri R.C Sodha and Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal, who too have since retired from service have been given the retiral benefits condoning the break in service, by Government of Gujarat vide Resolution No. PRE/ 1383.K dated 31st March 1984. The High Court, directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of pension and gratuity, vide order dated 23rd April 1993 passed in the aforesaid Special Civil Application, but his case was not considered as per the directions of the High Court and the petitioner was refused the grant of pension or gratuity. The petitioner complains the action of the State Government as highly discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. He has further stated that the State of Gujarat (Education Department), vide Resolution No. UMRA-1287-MP-418-G1 dated 15th November 1989 granted pension and gratuity to yet another employee, namely, Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal, who last Served as an Assistant Teacher in Mahatma Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Kuber Nagar at Ahmedabad who too had migrated from Sind to India, along with the petitioner during the 1971 Indo-Pak Conflict. He claims that he is\entitled to pension for a period over 21 years of continuous service, by including the service rendered by him in the occupied area and adding the period during which he was unemployed in accordance with the decision in respect of Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal, vide Government Resolution No. UMRA-1287-MO-418-G1 dated 15th November 1989. Facing such a situation, the petitioner again filed the present Special Civil Application on 6th July 1994. 4. On 7th July 1994, a returnable notice was issued. When the matter came up before the Court on 29th December 1994, it was found that no return was filed by the State of Gujarat, as usual. Rule was issued and the matter was fixed for final disposal. On 30th December 1994, when the matter came up before the Court, a detailed order was passed with reference to the document at Annexure-H. from the contents of which, it appeared that, in case of certain employees who were displaced from West Pakistan during the Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971, a view was taken by the Government that the maximum period of service rendered in Pakistan to be accepted on the basis of the collateral evidence for the purpose of pension should not exceed five years. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader who appeared on behalf of the respondent-State on that day, under instructions from the concerned officers, made a statement before the Court that, the petitioner had produced certain collateral evidence indicating that he was in the service of the Pakistan Government right from 1952 till he was displaced in February 1972 and it was not disputed that for a period of 10 months the petitioner had Served the Indian Administration in 1972 and thereafter, for a period of little more than three years, i.e, from October 1987 to December 1990, he was in the regular service of the State of Gujarat and he had retired from service in December 1990. It was given out by learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader on behalf of the respondent-State that the petitioner's case was under active consideration of the Government and the decision was likely to be taken within a short term and therefore, the time was granted with the expectation that the concerned authority would decide the matter at the earliest possible opportunity. Even uptil now, no return has been filed, but a copy of the order dated 31stJanuary 1995 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department has been placed on record. In this document, it has been held out that the benefits with regard to the pension had been given only to those employees who had come prior to 23rd March 1971 in accordance with the decision of the Government of India and whereas the petitioner had come to serve under the Indian Administration after 23rd March 1971, he was not entitled to any pension. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to several orders passed by the Sup dt. of Police, Tharparkar. Mirpurkhas and certain Certificates issued by the West Pakistan and these documents, about 20 in number have been placed on record, collectively, as Annexure-C. These documents do indicate that the petitioner was in the service of the Pakistan Government since 1954 or 1952. of Police, Tharparkar. Mirpurkhas and certain Certificates issued by the West Pakistan and these documents, about 20 in number have been placed on record, collectively, as Annexure-C. These documents do indicate that the petitioner was in the service of the Pakistan Government since 1954 or 1952. It is the petitioner's own case that his service record has not been received by the Government of India through the functionaries of the Government of Pakistan, but the above-referred documents 20 in number, placed on record, collectively, as Annexure-C form a collateral contemporaneous evidence to show that he was in the service of the Pakistan Government and the document Annexure-D shows that he was appointed as Clerk by the Civil administrator, Chachro on 22ndFebruary 1972 and the Certificate Annexure-E shows that he had worked as patwari-cum-clerk in the occupied area at Chachro from 1-4-1972 to 22-12-1972. The document Annexure-F dated 8th October 1987 is the order, by which the petitioner was given appointment under the Government of Gujarat as Junior Clerk. Documents at Annexures-H & I show that, in case of certain employees who were displaced from West Pakistan like the petitioner during the Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971 had been absorbed as Primary Teachers under the District Education Committee, Kachchh, with effect from 1-2-1973, 12-1-1974, 15-1-1974 and 12-1-1974 respectively, noted against their names in the document. The Resolution contained in this document dated 31st March 1984 goes to show that the question of counting the previous service rendered by the employees mentioned therein in Pakistan condoning the break in service earned on account of migration to India for the purpose of pension was considered by the Government and after sympathetic consideration, the Government directed that the break in service for periods shown in column 4 against their names in the table should be condoned for that purpose and the maximum period of service in Pakistan which should be accepted on the basis of collateral evidence should not exceed five years and further that the ceiling of five years on service will not operate in the case of any of them whose service record has been received from the authorities in Pakistan. This Resolution was issued with the concurrence of the Revenue Department, General Administration Department and the Finance Department of the Government of Gujarat. This Resolution was issued with the concurrence of the Revenue Department, General Administration Department and the Finance Department of the Government of Gujarat. Document Annexure-1 relates to one Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal who is also claimed to be a similarly situated candidate and he has also been paid the pension. 6. As against the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, neither any document has been filed on behalf of the respondents nor any return has been filed nor any averment or any part of the averment of the petition has been controverted by the respondents despite several opportunities having been granted to them and the sole document placed on record on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is the copy of the order dated 31st January 1995 passed by the Home Department, Government of Gujarat, declining the grant of pension or any retiral benefits to the petitioner. This order, of course, says that the retiral benefits and pension would be paid only to those who had come under the Civil Administration in the area occupied by the Indian Army prior to 23rd March 1971, but the stand taken by the Government in this order does not withstand the test of the decisions taken by the Government of Gujarat and the orders passed with regard to 5 similarly situated persons as named and contained in Annexures - H & I placed on record by the petitioner. It appears that the case of the petitioner is identical to those five employees mentioned in Annexures-H & I, i.e, Shri R.K Bhanani, Shri P.M Sodha, Shri M.D Oza, Shri R.C Sodha and Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal, who were absorbed, as Primary Teachers in the Education Department like the petitioner and who had come to India as displaced persons on account of the Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971. Thus, the stand taken with reference to the date that the benefit of pension and retiral benefits was given only to those who came before 23rd March 1971 does not appear to be correct in view of the Resolution dated 31st March 1984 contained in Annexure-H and the order passed by the Education Department of the Government of Gujarat on 15th March 1989 as contained in Annexure-I. All these persons were absorbed after 23rd march 1971 and, therefore, there is no justification to deny the same treatment to the petitioner. 7. 7. The petitioner has also placed on record the Resolution dated 17th April 1967 passed by the Government of Gujarat and this document is at Anaexure-G at page 38 of the paper book and this again is a Resolution in the matter of ignoring the period of break in service in determining the total length of qualifying service and with regard to the service rendered in Sind/North-West Frontier Provinces. The condition Nos. (ii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) of this Resolution are reproduced as under: (ii) Break in service, if any, which was caused on account of migration to India and the inability of the Govt. servants to obtain employment under the Government of Bombay/ Saurashtra may be condoned by the Heads of Department irrespective of the length of pre-migration service provided the period of break exceeds two years, orders of Government may be obtained. The period of break will be ignored in determining the total length of qualifying service. (iv) Where service records have not been received from the authorities in Pakistan, the displaced Government servants may be asked to furnish collateral evidence in terms of para 3(a) of the Government Resolution, Political and Services Department No. DPP/ 1155-J dated 13th January 1955. The collateral evidence should be supplied by the permanent Government servants who will be held responsible for any misrepresentation of facts in this behalf. The collateral evidence should be accepted by pension sanctioning authority after the same has been compared and checked with the details of service furnished by the employees concerned at the time of his initial entry into Government service or at any time before promulgation of these orders. In a case where details of service rendered in Pakistan have not been furnish on previous occasion, the pension sanctioning authority should accept the collateral evidence in consultation with the Audit Officer. The maximum period of service which should be accepted on the basis of collateral evidence is five years. Service claimed in excess of five years should be ignored. (vii) The temporary service, rendered in Sind/North-West Frontier Provinces will count for pension provided the Government servant concerned retires or dies while holding a permanent and pensionable post under the Government of Gujarat. (viii) These orders take effect from the 1st October, 1961. Service claimed in excess of five years should be ignored. (vii) The temporary service, rendered in Sind/North-West Frontier Provinces will count for pension provided the Government servant concerned retires or dies while holding a permanent and pensionable post under the Government of Gujarat. (viii) These orders take effect from the 1st October, 1961. In other words, these orders will apply to such of the displaced Government Servants who retired or retire on or after the said date, while holding permanent and pensionable posts under the Government of Gujarat. 8. It is, therefore, clear that this Resolution is the source for the authority to issue the Resolutions Annexures-H & I in the matter of giving pension to the persons similarly situated qua the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents in the order dated 31st January 1995 passed with regard to the petitioner during the pendency of this Special Civil Application is, therefore, totally inconsistent with the Resolution passed by the Government of Gujarat and the orders passed in pursuance thereof with regard to the similarly situated employees named therein and it appears to be a case of discrimination and the order dated 31st January 1995 having been passed without application of mind and oblivious of the earlier decisions and Resolutions and the bald reference to the Standing Orders of the Government of India made in this order dated 31st January 1995 does not withstand the test of equal treatment with reference to the, earlier Resolutions and the orders passed in identical cases. On the face of it, it is a case of discrimination and, the petitioner is entitled to the protection of the Resolutions passed by the Government of Gujarat in the matter of condoning the break in service period in case of displaced persons like the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner's case claiming similar treatment qua other similarly situated employees appears to be well founded. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, Mr. T.H Sompura, could not explain as to why the petitioner was not being treated at par with the other employees as aforesaid in the matter of grant of pension and retiral benefits nor he could explain as to how he was denied the benefit on the ground that, he had come after 23 rd March 1971 when other employees as mentioned in the document at Annexures-H & I had also been given such benefits. He failed to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the employees as aforesaid. 9. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner is also held to be entitled to the benefit of the Resolutions passed by the Government of Gujarat, i.e, Annexure-G dated 17th April 1967 in the matter of displaced Government servants from Pakistan, contained in the Scheme of counting the temporary service and it is directed that in the case of the petitioner also, the maximum period of service in Pakistan as rendered by the petitioner should be accepted on the basis of the collateral evidence produced by the petitioner and for the purpose of condoning the break in service and grant of pension and other retiral benefits etc., his case should be treated at par with Shri R.K Bhanani, Shri P.M Sodha, Shri M.D Oza, Shri R.C Sodha and Shri Vishandas P. Jaipal, who were absorbed in the service of Government of Gujarat in Education Department and the petitioner's case for pension, gratuity and retiral benefits etc. be dealt with and decided and the due amount should be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law at par with the employees as aforesaid. The petitioner's case for the purpose of pension, gratuity, retiral benefits etc. shall be processed and finalised within a period of three months from the date the writ is Served upon the respondents. 10. This Special Civil Application, therefore, succeeds and the same is allowed as indicated above. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.” 14. The only difference is with regard to the service rendered in Pakistan. It appears that Mr. V.G Khatri had rendered about 22 years between 1952 and 1971; whereas the petitioner had rendered two years, two months and 22 days service in Pakistan. The break in service in case of V.G Khatri was between March, 1971 to October, 1987 and the service rendered by Mr. V.G Khatri in India were between 28/10/1987 to 31/12/1990. Except the above differences, there is no substantial difference between the case of V.G Khatri and the case of the petitioner herein. 15. This Court in the case of V.G Khatri had directed the case to be considered on the lines similar to Shri R.K Bhanani, Shri P.M Sodha, Shri M.D Oza, Shri R.C Sodha and Shir V.P Jaipal. Except the above differences, there is no substantial difference between the case of V.G Khatri and the case of the petitioner herein. 15. This Court in the case of V.G Khatri had directed the case to be considered on the lines similar to Shri R.K Bhanani, Shri P.M Sodha, Shri M.D Oza, Shri R.C Sodha and Shir V.P Jaipal. The cases of the above referred persons came to be considered favourably and the relevant resolution in that regard is dated 31/03/1984; a perusal of which shows that the services rendered by them in Pakistan and break in service which occurred on account of migration to India as well as the services rendered by them in India were ordered to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits. That Shri V.G Khatri was also extended the similar benefits by resolution dated 17/04/1967 and therefore there is no reason for the respondents to deny the same to the petitioner who is also similarly situated to the said persons. In fact, the resolution dated 17/04/1967 addresses the issue raised in the petition. The said resolution has been interpreted by this Court in the case of V.G Khatri as referred herein above. Therefore, the averments contrary to the above resolution made in the affidavit-in-reply cannot be accepted. 16. Affidavit-in-rejoinder explains the circumstances under which the break of 17 years had occurred. Briefly stated, it appears that after migrating to India, the petitioner had made several efforts to get the job, but it was denied to him until the grant of citizenship to him and his family. It is only after such citizenship which was granted in 1988 that the job was granted to the petitioner. Even these circumstances are similarly situated with those of Shri V.G Khatri. 17. With the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has produced the photo identity card evidencing his employment in Pakistan. Therefore, there is no reason to raise doubt as to whether the petitioner was employed in Pakistan in the government service. 18. Even these circumstances are similarly situated with those of Shri V.G Khatri. 17. With the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has produced the photo identity card evidencing his employment in Pakistan. Therefore, there is no reason to raise doubt as to whether the petitioner was employed in Pakistan in the government service. 18. Submission of the learned AGP attempting to distinguish the case of Shri R.K Bhanani, P.M Sodha, M.D Oza and R.C Sodha on the ground that they were individual cases and were not enshrined in any government policy does not merit acceptance as this Court after elaborate discussion in the case of Shri V.G Khatri has found that the case of Shri V.G Khatri is similarly situated to the above referred persons. For the similar reasons, the attempt of the learned AGP to distinguish other cases must fail. 19. In the above referred circumstances, this Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case is covered by the decision rendered in case of Shri V.G Khatri and therefore the petitioner is required to be treated similar to Shri V.G Khatri and above referred persons. 20. In the result, the petition succeeds. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner on the lines of Shri V.G Khatri and the persons above referred. 21. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.