JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16175/2011 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition, the original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Shri Sujay Adeshra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on the following grounds. 1. That though the reliance was placed on certain decisions of this Court passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 9852/2006, 24906/2006, 4449/2009 and 297/2010, which according to the appellants were squarely applicable to the case of the petitioners, the learned Single Judge has not at all dealt with the same. It is submitted that even it was also pointed out that the orders passed by this Court in aforesaid Special Civil Applications were as such implemented by the State Government. 2. That the decisions which were referred to in paragraph 3, while dismissing the petition shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 3. That the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality vs. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union reported in 2003 (4) GLR 1841 is held to be no longer a good law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and Anr. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 130 . Making above submissions it is requested to allow the present Appeal and in the alternative it is requested to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to consider the petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. 3. Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that as such subsequently the circular/policy by which status of work charge employees was to be given to a daily rated workman has been withdrawn. However, he is not disputing that while disposing of the main Special Civil Application the learned Single Judge has not at all dealt with and/or considered the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court which as such were relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. However, he is not disputing that while disposing of the main Special Civil Application the learned Single Judge has not at all dealt with and/or considered the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court which as such were relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. He has also not in a position to dispute that in the subsequent decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality (Supra) is not a good law. Therefore, he has requested to pass appropriate order. 4. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and considering the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is required to be noted that while dismissing the main petition, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality (Supra). The said decision is held to be not a good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. (Supra). It is also required to be noted that as such the claim of the original petitioners was for the status of work charge employees in the work charge establishment of State Government and as such not for regularization and/or to make them permanent and/or claiming permanency. Therefore, whether the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 or in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors. reported in (2008) SCC 1 shall not be applicable or not is also required to be considered. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and without expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties on the aforesaid ground, the present Letters Patent Appeal succeeds. reported in (2008) SCC 1 shall not be applicable or not is also required to be considered. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and without expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties on the aforesaid ground, the present Letters Patent Appeal succeeds. Impugned order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16175/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits. It will also be open for the original petitioners to amend the petition which may be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. Present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.