JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pranav Dave appearing for Mr. Shivang M. Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Amita Shah for the respondent No. 1. 2. Perused the record. The petitioner herein has sought indulgence of this Court under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India. She was demoted from the post of permanent employee to Rojamdar (daily-wager) by the respondent No. 2 a Government - Board. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting-aside the communication dated 7.2.2007, whereby she was refused the regular salary as permanent employee of the Government. Petitioner has also prayed for direction to restore the status of the petitioner as per Government's order dated 11.10.2014, whereby she has been absorbed from daily-wager to regular post of Peon in the establishment of the Board, so also to confirm her service as such pursuant to office order dated 17.1.2005 whereby, she has been selected as Peon, initially on probation for one year in the scale of Rs. 2,550-3,200/- w.e.f. 2.11.2004 since she was working as such from 2.11.2004 when there was vacant post because of deputation of regular Peon, namely, A.S. Rabari. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for restricting and restraining the respondents from terminating her services and to continue her as Peon in regular pay-scale. Pursuant to prayer of interim relief, by its order dated 23.6.2008, this Court has specifically restrained and restricted the respondents, directing that no further action is to be taken and service conditions of the petitioner as on that date shall be maintained till the service of notice. Whereas, such direction in form of interim relief has been ordered to be continued till further orders when the matter was admitted by order dated 1.7.2008. Therefore, practically, now, respondents are restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner and to continue her on the same post with same salary. 4. The undisputed fact between the parties is to the effect that the petitioner was employed as Peon on 18.11.1991 right from the establishment of respondent No. 2 - Board. At the relevant time, she was employed on sanctioned post, but instead of appointing her on regular post, she was taken as Rojamdar. Therefore, petitioner and two other employees, namely, A.S. Rabari and one S.V. Sodha filed Special Civil Application No. 6908 of 1996. At the relevant time, she was employed on sanctioned post, but instead of appointing her on regular post, she was taken as Rojamdar. Therefore, petitioner and two other employees, namely, A.S. Rabari and one S.V. Sodha filed Special Civil Application No. 6908 of 1996. By judgment and order dated 5.9.2001 in such Special Civil Application, at the relevant time, the Co-ordinate Bench has while confirming the interim relief against termination of petitioners before it, including the present petitioner, which was ordered to be continued till respondent - Board takes appropriate decision for the purpose of regularising the service of the petitioners and thereby, respondents were directed to take appropriate decision so as to regularise the petitioners, who are working as Rojamdars for long time. However, it is further observed that in case for some reasons, the State Government does not grant sanction to the respondent No. 2 - the Corporation for regularizing these three employees, then, it would be open for these employees to file substantive petition again before this Court and, therefore, if the decision of the Government is against the petitioners, the same will not be implemented for a period of two weeks and the status quo i.e. interim relief to continue for such further two weeks from the date of decision by the respondents. It is also undisputed fact that, practically, all such daily-wagers were working with the respondents initially on contractual basis as part-time employees for limited duration, and when office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman fell vacant, the services of the petitioner were ended since it was co-terminus with the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Therefore, in the previous petition being Special Civil Application No. 2813 of 1995, the Co-ordinate Bench has recorded a statement of learned Government Solicitor that as and when work is available and as and when posts are required to be filled-in, either part-time or full time for the work in question, petitioners shall be given opportunity of being considered, provided the petitioners fall within the zone of consideration. The Court has observed that their case shall be considered sympathetically since petitioners have served nearly for four years with the respondents and therefore, respondents shall exercise the power of relaxation and take necessary steps to regularise the petitioners as and when contingency pointed out takes place. The Court has observed that their case shall be considered sympathetically since petitioners have served nearly for four years with the respondents and therefore, respondents shall exercise the power of relaxation and take necessary steps to regularise the petitioners as and when contingency pointed out takes place. Therefore, practically, there is a promise by the respondents that as and when there are posts available with the respondents, the present petitioners shall be considered and subject to their eligibility on particular post, they may be regularised. 5. Pursuant to such decisions in previous matters, respondents have allowed the petitioner to work on different sanctioned posts on the establishment of respondent No. 2 for long time. 6. However, ultimately, by resolution dated 15.6.2001, respondent No. 1 has sanctioned several posts in the establishment of respondent No. 2, wherein there is only one post of Peon and therefore, when Mr. A.S. Rabari and petitioner both were working as Peon, only one of them can be absorbed for the post of Peon. Pursuant to such sanctioned post, by order dated 30.10.2002, respondents have come forward with a disclosure that at such point of time, Mr. S.V. Sodha can be absorbed on the post of Driver, since he was serving as Driver, whereas on the post of Peon when there is only one sanctioned post of Peon, Mr. A.S. Rabari alone is to be absorbed and that there is no specific work available for the petitioner. However, respondent No. 1 has advised respondent No. 2 that they may continue the service of the petitioner as Rojamdar, if they have requirement of her services. It seems that services of the petitioner was continued as Rojamdar because of such office orders, but ultimately, on 11.10.2014, when A.S. Rabari was posted or shifted on deputation in the office of the Director, Social Welfare Department, Gandhinagar as Peon on the vacant post of Peon in that department; the post of Peon in the office of respondent No. 2 fell vacant and therefore, respondent No. 1 has approved the absorption of the petitioner on such post of Peon, subject to conditions as per G.R. dated 30.10.2002. Therefore, by office order dated 17.1.2015, petitioner has been posted as Peon initially on ad hoc basis for one year in the regular scale of Rs. Therefore, by office order dated 17.1.2015, petitioner has been posted as Peon initially on ad hoc basis for one year in the regular scale of Rs. 2,550-3,200/- w.e.f. 2.11.2004 and on completion of probation period, she has been confirmed by office order dated 30.11.2005 on long term basis and by order dated 29.11.2005, after releasing the requisite yearly increment, her salary was fixed as Rs. 2,605/-. 7. However, thereafter, unfortunately, by letter dated 7.2.2007, the respondent No. 1 has conveyed the respondent No. 2 that petitioner is not entitled to regular salary except the amount to be paid as daily-wager. For such decision, respondent No. 1 is relying upon the G.R. dated 30.10.2002. It seems that while doing so, the concerned Officer of the respondent No. 1 has failed to realise that in fact, his predecessor has already passed G.R. dated 11.10.2014, so also respondent No. 2 has issued appointment orders dated 17.1.2005, 29.11.2005 and 30.11.2005 in favour of the petitioner confirming her services as Peon on regular post. Therefore, there is no reason for the respondent No. 1 to issue any such letter dated 7.2.2007. It seems that pursuant to such letter respondent No. 2 has immediately on the same day, without realising the fact regarding resolution dated 11.10.2014 so also their office orders dated 17.1.2005, 29.11.2005 and 30.11.2005, issued one office order now, placing the petitioner in the cadre of Rojamdar from the regular post of Peon and thereby, demoting her cadre without any reason and when otherwise there is no complaint so far as her work and duties are concerned. 8. Therefore, prima facie it becomes clear and obvious that at initial stage, when respondents did not have two posts of Peon and therefore, they did not absorb the petitioner as regular Peon, but in the year 2004, when there was vacancy on the post of Peon, may be because of deputation of Mr. A.S. Rabari, since total number of post of Peon was only one and thereby, in absence of Mr. A.S. Rabari, since total number of post of Peon was only one and thereby, in absence of Mr. A.S. Rabari when there was need of regular Peon in the office of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 has pursuant to approval of respondent No. 1 by its order dated 11.10.2014 appointed the petitioner on regular post of Peon by office order dated 17.1.2005 followed by further office orders dated 29.11.2005 and 30.11.2005, which confirm that petitioner has not only been absorbed and appointed on regular post, but she had been granted the benefit of yearly increment. 9. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for the respondent No. 1 to communicate the respondent No. 2 by their letter dated 07.02.2007 that petitioner is not entitled to regular salary in the cadre of Peon and that she must be paid only remuneration as daily Rojamdar on daily wages. Though there is no disclosure of any reason for any such decision, if we consider the defence and submission by the respondent, it seems that, the respondent No. 1 is under impression that when there was only one sanctioned post of Peon in the office of the respondent No. 2 and when Mr. A.S. Rabari was serving on such post, respondent No. 2 could not absorb and appoint any other person as peon, considering that on regular post of Peon, lien of Mr. Rabari would continue even if he is serving on deputation with some other department, may be because of the requirement of respondents. In such circumstances, first thing which requires to be considered is to the effect that even if Mr. A.S. Rabari was serving in some other department on deputation and thereby he may claim his lien on the post of peon with respondent No. 2, the fact remains that on deputation of Mr. A.S. Rabari, the post of the peon with respondent No. 2 was not fallen vacant only but there was no other person available with respondent No. 2 to work as a peon and therefore, respondent No. 2 was having necessity of a person to work as a Peon. Therefore, when respondent No. 1 has already approved and sanctioned the absorption and appointment of present petitioner as a peon by resolution dated 11.10.2004, then thereafter respondents have no reason whatsoever to call back such decision without any sufficient cause or reason. Therefore, when respondent No. 1 has already approved and sanctioned the absorption and appointment of present petitioner as a peon by resolution dated 11.10.2004, then thereafter respondents have no reason whatsoever to call back such decision without any sufficient cause or reason. More particularly, considering the fact that at the relevant time, simultaneously the file for absorbing the services of A.S. Rabari in the concerned department of Government, where he was posted on deputation, was under consideration and practically by office order dated 28.12.2004, services of Mr. A.S. Rabari were regularised on regular post by the office of Director, Social Welfare Department at Gandhinagar and thereby as soon as Mr. Rabari is absorbed on a regular post of a peon with the department of the respondent No. 1, his lien on same post with the respondent No. 2 - Corporation comes to an end and thereby, post with respondent No. 2 stands vacant and on such post if petitioner has been appointed, that too by the approval and resolution of respondent No. 1 then there is no reason for respondent to find fault in such approval and appointment and that too after a period of three years from such order of approval. 10. Thereby, though facts are very much clear, the respondents have as usual, instead of admitting their lacuna and lack of coordination and selectiveness, while dealing with the career of their employees resisted the petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply on 30.04.2010. The sum and substance of the affidavit is only to the effect that pursuant to GR dated 12.05.2008, when there is only one post of peon and that when A.S. Rabari is already serving as a peon in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, now respondent No. 2 cannot appoint petitioner on such post and thereby if respondent No. 2 has posted the petitioner pursuant to G.R. dated 11.10.2004 by the Government, petitioner is not entitled to regular salary of a peon and that respondent No. 2 may continue her service only as daily wager if respondent No. 2, so desire. 11. 11. However the discussion herein above makes it very much clear that the service of A.S. Rabari has been regularized in the office of Director, Welfare Department of Government and thereby post of the peon in establishment of respondent No. 2 stands vacant as back in the year 2004 itself and therefore, reference of G.R. dated 12.05.2008 regarding only one post of the peon is not relevant at all. Both the respondents have filed the affidavit on 30.04.2010 and 04.08.2008 respectively. However, it seems that the deponent of affidavit; being an account officer of the respondent No. 2 Corporation has not verified the entire file and service record of the petitioner when he has not uttered a single word or when he could not challenge or explain the resolution dated 11.10.2004 so also office order dated 07.01.2005, so also 29.11.2005, 30.11.2005. 12. Surprisingly, there is only reference of order dated 11.10.2004 in affidavit-in-reply filed by under secretary of Social Justice and Welfare department of Respondent No. 1 which reads as under:- "I say and submit that for the implementation of the order of Hon'ble High Court in SCA No. 6908 of 1996 dated 5-9-2001, Government had initiated the process for the regularization of the petitioners and services of the two petitioners were regularized. It is submitted that according to the proposal of Gujarat Gopalak Vikas Nigam Limited, Shri Amrithbhai Rabari was deputed to Social Defence Department as a peon and subsequently the post was made vacant to accommodate the present petitioner Smt. Maltiben K. Bhatt and the orders of 11-10-2004 was issued. So at that time also there was no clear vacancy on the establishment of Corporation butt Government had sympathetically considered to appoint Smt. Maltiben Bhatt." 13. However such disclosure in no way justifies the impugned order in any manner whatsoever and therefore at present practical way concerning the legality and thereby if at all there is irregularity, arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order only and not in order dated 11.10.2004. If at all respondent wants to plead and submit that order dated 11.10.2004 is irregular or otherwise, since they are pleading past to effect the present petitioner, then in that case, it is for the respondents to find out the culprit for passing such order and take necessary steps. 14. If at all respondent wants to plead and submit that order dated 11.10.2004 is irregular or otherwise, since they are pleading past to effect the present petitioner, then in that case, it is for the respondents to find out the culprit for passing such order and take necessary steps. 14. In response to such defence and reply, petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit on 06.05.2010 clarifying the situation which is discussed here-in-above and enclosing the G.R. dated 28.12.2004 whereby service of A.S. Rabari has been absorbed in the office of Director, Social Welfare Department of respondent No. 1, so also office order dated 22.01.2005 and 20.06.2005 whereby A.S. Rabari was posted as a peon in the Department of the respondent No. 1 which makes it clear that thereupon, post of the peon in the office of respondent No. 2 stands vacant and therefore, there is no reason to continue the petitioner on daily wages thereafter. 15. The above discussion makes it clear that there is clear misconception at the end of the respondent in considering that when Mr. A.S. Rabari is on deputation with respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2, there cannot be a regular post in place of A.S. Rabari in establishment of respondent No. 2, because as discussed herein above, when petitioner has worked for more than a decade with respondent No. 2 and now when it is very much clear on record, supported by documentary evidence, that Mr. A.S. Rabari is not only posted on deputation with the department of respondent No. 1 but his services are being regularized by absorbing him in department of respondent No. 1 and thereby on such absorption, his lien with respondent No. 2 comes to an end and therefore there would be a vacant post of peon with respondent No. 2. A.S. Rabari is not only posted on deputation with the department of respondent No. 1 but his services are being regularized by absorbing him in department of respondent No. 1 and thereby on such absorption, his lien with respondent No. 2 comes to an end and therefore there would be a vacant post of peon with respondent No. 2. Considering such fact that respondent No. 1 has already passed an order on 11.10.2004, approving the posting of the petitioner on regular post of the peon and thereby when by office order dated 17.01.2005, so also 09.11.2005, 30.11.2005 when petitioner has been allotted work on regular post of being on regular pay, there is no reason for the respondents to issue communication dated 07.02.2007 that too in absence of any office order to that effect, pursuant to which, respondent No. 2 have any authority to issue office order dated 07.02.2007 conveying the petitioner that she is not entitled to regular salary but now she will be entitled to reimbursement to daily wager only. 16. In view of above clarity, the petition needs to be allowed. Thereby communication dated 07.02.2007 at Annexure I with the petition, so also office order dated 11.10.2002 at Annexure I are hereby quashed and set aside. Thereby, now respondents shall release the regular salary in favour of the petitioner if it is not paid with all service benefit of yearly increment and other benefits without fail within four months from the date of receipt of writ of said order. The respondent shall now consider the petition as a permanent employee on regular establishment of respondent No. 2 with effect from 02.11.2004. If respondents fails to pay the arrears as aforesaid within four months from the date of receipt of this order, then they shall be liable to pay 6% interest from due date till actual payment to them. 17. The petition is allowed to that extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.