JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who were working as "Muster Assistants" principally for the relief of in the nature of a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits including service benefits, seniority, promotion, pensionary benefits to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. Incidental to the said relief is the relief sought by the petitioners by way of quashing and setting aside the Lettercum-Order dated 21/05/2015 by which the petitioners were given benefits from 2009. In seeking the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995, the petitioners have also claimed the relief of a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be paid the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for class 'C' category and Rs. 2255-3200 for class 'E' category as per 5th Pay Commission and Rs. 5200-20200 for class 'C' category and Rs. 4400-7440 for class 'E' category as per 6th Pay Commission. The aforesaid entitlement is claimed by the petitioners based on the Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. The said Resolution excluded the persons who were not in service between the period 26/05/1993 and 31/05/1993. It seems that by subsequent Government Resolution dated 21/04/1999, persons like the petitioners whose services were terminated between 26/05/1993 and 31/05/1993 were also considered eligible for benefits of the said Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. 3. The above petitions had come up before a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta and Ravindra V. Ghuge, JJ.) on 04/05/2017. The issue of whether the petitioners in the above petitions had suffered a break in service between 26/05/1993 & 31/05/1993 was addressed by the said Division bench on the said day. The Division Bench adverted to the fact that the said controversy assumes importance in view of the fact that the employees working on the Employment Guarantee Scheme ('EGS' for short) who were not in employment between 26/05/1993 & 31/05/1993 cannot be held eligible for absorption as per the scheme comprised in the Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. The Division Bench thereafter noted that though the petitioners had been terminated prior to 31/05/1993, the petitioners had adopted proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal challenging their termination. It was observed by the Division bench that in some cases, reinstatement with continuity of service was granted. The Division Bench thereafter noted that though the petitioners had been terminated prior to 31/05/1993, the petitioners had adopted proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal challenging their termination. It was observed by the Division bench that in some cases, reinstatement with continuity of service was granted. The Division Bench therefore observed that as a consequence of the orders in favour of the petitioners, it would not be open for the Government to canvass before this Court that they were not in employment as on 31/05/1993. The Division Bench accordingly concluded that in all such cases wherein the petitioners have been granted reinstatement with continuity of service and which relief has attained finality, it would not be open for the respondentState to contend that they were not in employment on 31/05/1993 so as to be ineligible for the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. The Division Bench accordingly observed that the said issue is settled as regards such of the petitioners who were terminated prior to 31/05/1993 and who have been subsequently granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. 4. In the light of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 04/05/2017, the respondents were required to take a call in respect of the petitioners as regards the date from which they would be entitled to absorption as regular employees. 5. On behalf of the respondents, an additional affidavit-inreply dated 08/10/2018 has been filed by one Ajit Baburao Pawar working as Deputy Commissioner (EGS), Pune Division, Pune. In the said affidavit the factual position insofar as the service of the petitioners is initially mentioned. It is thereafter mentioned that petitioners have been granted relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages i.e. by the concerned Labour Court/Tribunal. It is further mentioned that the petitioners had not demanded the relief in the matter of getting benefits under the said Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. However, what is significant to note is that in the affidavit a reference is made to the order dated 04/05/2017 passed in the above writ petitions and it is mentioned that as per the said order it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of absorption as per Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. However, what is significant to note is that in the affidavit a reference is made to the order dated 04/05/2017 passed in the above writ petitions and it is mentioned that as per the said order it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of absorption as per Government Resolution dated 01/12/1995. It is stated that the State Government out of 31 petitioners had absorped 23 petitioners in Government service from 04/05/2017 and that 8 petitioners have already retired as "Muster Assistants". The choice of the date i.e. 04/05/2017 is justified on the ground that the Division Bench by order dated 04/05/017 has held the petitioners as entitled to absorption and therefore, the petitioners have been absorbed from 04/05/2017. Hence the choice of the date i.e. 04/05/2017 is attributed to the order of the same date passed by the Division Bench. The petitioners have a grievance and justifiably so of the said date of 04/05/2017 as being the date of their absorption. 6. During the course of the hearing of the above writ petitions, our attention was drawn to the Judgment and order dated 19/07/2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2946 of 1997. The petitioners therein were also "Muster Assistants" who were working in the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra. The grievance of the said Petitioners was also as regards the grant and privileges of a permanent employee to them. The Division Bench after referring to the facts of the case of the said petitioner, issued the following directions which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced hereinunder. The grievance of the said Petitioners was also as regards the grant and privileges of a permanent employee to them. The Division Bench after referring to the facts of the case of the said petitioner, issued the following directions which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced hereinunder. (a) It will be open for the Petitioner to make a representation to the concerned Authorities for grant of pensionary benefits; (b) If such representation is made, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date on which the representation is made; (c) In view of the judgment and order dated 19th September, 1996 of the Industrial Court at Solapur in Complaint (ULP) No.443 of 1990, for the purposes of considering the case for grant of pensionary benefits, the Petitioner shall be treated as a permanent employee with effect from 1st October, 1988 till the date of his superannuation; (d) We make it clear that apart from issuing the direction regarding the date of permanent employment of the Petitioner, we have not examined the case of the Petitioner as regards his eligibility to pensionary benefits. 7. The learned counsel had thereafter brought to our notice the Judgment and Order dated 06/09/2017 of the Division Bench of this Court sitting at Aurangabad. The said Judgment was also rendered in a number of petitions being Writ Petition no. 12043 of 2016 in the matter of Kadu Mahadu Bhawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others and companion writ petitions. The Division Bench sitting at Aurangabad has referred to the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2946 of 1997 and has thereafter issued the directions which are contained in paragraph 7 of the said Judgment and order which for the sake of ready reference are produced hereinunder: (i) In view of the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Industrial Court for the purpose of considering the grant of pensionary benefits, the Petitioners shall be treated as Permanent Employees with effect from the date of their complaints i. e. from the date of filing of their respective ULP's till the respective dates of superannuation. (ii) In case of the Petitioners who were already superannuated, it will be open for them to make a representation to the concerned Authorities for grant of pensionary benefits. (ii) In case of the Petitioners who were already superannuated, it will be open for them to make a representation to the concerned Authorities for grant of pensionary benefits. (iii) If such representation is made, same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date on which the representations are made. (iv) We make it clear that, apart from issuing directions regarding the date of permanent employment of the respective Petitioners, we have not examined the case of the Petitioners as regards the eligibility of pensionary benefits. (v) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. (vi) Writ petitions accordingly partly allowed. 8. We are informed that the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 2946 of 1997 has been confirmed by the Apex Court and thereby the date of 01/10/1988 has not been discarded by the Apex Court. 9. In the instant Writ Petitions as indicated above, the State Government has undoubtedly accepted the fact that the benefits of the Government Resolution Dated 01/12/1995 are required to be given to the petitioners. However, the question that remains is from which date. Insofar as the date fixed by the State Government is concerned i.e. 04/05/2017 we do not find any rationale in the same. In similar cases in the past wherein the services of the "Muster Assistants" were terminated and Labour Court/Tribunals have set aside the terminations and granted reinstatement with continuity of service or even only reinstatement, the benefits of the said Resolution dated 01/12/1995 were granted from the date of the Applications before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal as the case may be. In our view, though the services of the petitioners were terminated, may be even during the said period between 26/05/1993 & 31/05/1993, the fact that the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals have adjudicated the dispute as regards the termination in their favour would undoubtedly have a bearing on the entitlement of the petitioners in respect of absorption. We therefore, for the sake of convenience reproduce the table in respect of the details of the petitioners in all the above three Petitions: WRIT PETITION NO. 8908 OF 2015 KISHOR GAIKWAD AND 21 ORS V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Sr. We therefore, for the sake of convenience reproduce the table in respect of the details of the petitioners in all the above three Petitions: WRIT PETITION NO. 8908 OF 2015 KISHOR GAIKWAD AND 21 ORS V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Sr. No. Name of Petitioner Date of appointment Termination Reference ID No. & decision date High Court WP No. Date of Rejoining as per Court order Present Status 1 Kishor Digambar Gaikwad 25.03.1986 01.04.1988 78/92 25.04.2001 4814/1999 28.11.2000 Disposed off 25.09.1997 Peon 2 Ramhari Mahadeo Parade 08.10.1982 23.11.1987 17/93 24.12.1997 5458/1998 Disposed off 01.09.1998 Retired 30.06.2016 3 Balu Nagnath Gadekar 25.03.1986 01.04.1988 27/92 12.04.2001 1893/2004 14.06.2004 Disposed off 28.09.1998 Peon 4 Nivruti Pandurang Bhosale 31.03.1986 19.02.1988 76/92 16.04.2001 1898/2004 13.04.2004 Disposed off 01.09.1998 Peon 5 Rajabhau Ramrao Gavali 15.05.1986 19.02.1988 66/92 17.04.2001 1837/2004 14.06.2004 01.09.1998 Talathi 6 Kumar Kundalik Shinde 07.10.1986 01.04.1988 10/91 13.05.1999 7324/1999 03.07.2015 Disposed off 17.02.2000 Peon. 7 Mukund Namdeo Ghogardare 03.07.1986 01.04.1988 97/93 17.09.1993 7323/1999 15.01.2001 Disposed off 04.05.1999 Talathi 8 Pandit Kisanrao Jagtap 08.10.1982 01.04.1988 32/93 26.04.2001 1860/2004 14.06.2004 Disposed 25.01.1999 Retired on 31.05.2011 9 Ganpat Mahipat Bhore 01.06.1986 01.05.1989 20/93 04.04.2001 5415/1998 28.03.2000 Disposed off 01.09.1998 Peon 10 Hanumant Ramkrishna Tonape 15.12.1986 31.03.1989 84/92 18.4.2001 6018/1998 28.03.2000 Disposed off 31.08.1998 Peon 11 Suresh Ramdas Ubale 16.10.1986 01.06.1988 68/92 19.04.1998 5420/1998 28.03.2000 Disposed off 01.09.1998 Peon 12. Shaikh Maksud Ahemad Mohammed 18.03.1986 31.01.1988 Rev. Appl. 22/98 30.09.2010 2011/2011 15.30.2011 admitted and stay 16.02.1999 Peon 13 Subhash Maruti Deshmukh 06.07.1977 15.11.1988 Com.749/96 14.12.1993 Nil 07.07.1994 Retired on 30.04.2016 14 Baliram Bhoja Kengar 16.09.1985 01.08.1988 23/95 17.04.2000 3371/2001 Admitted 14.03.2001 Peon 15 Shivaji Shamrao Bichukale 16.08.1986 06.12.1988 6/92 02.12.1998 2703/99 11.06.1999 Disposed 12.04.1999 Peon 16 Tatyasaheb Dhondiram Khot 17.11.1984 07/12/1990 Complaint 600/90 31.08.1994 2059/2011 30.09.2010 Admitted 01.12.1994 Peon 17 Dinkar Maruti Satpute 30.11.1984 10.12.1990 Complaint 601/90 31.08.1994 2085 / 2011 29.03.2011 Admitted 01.12.1994 Peon 18. Dashrath Shankar Chaudhari 10.08.1984 31.01.1988 Rev. No.225/94 14.07.1998 Nil 18.07.1998 Watchmen Retired 31.05.2018 19 Sadashiv Dada Pandole 01.10.1982 20.10.1985 231/1995 22.04.1999 Nil 28.05.1999 Peon 20 Balaso Dhondiba Tilekar 10.01.1984 30.05.1985 Rev. No. 102/1995 26.09.2000 5223/2004 admitted and stay 20.04.2006 01.10.1995 Peon 21 Baba Dada Shinde 07.09.1989 15.10.1986 Rev. No. 167/1991 11.04.1997 2717/1997 filed by State dismissed 22.07.1997 25.07.1997 Retired 31.07.2017 22 Shivaji Laxman Pisal 07.09.1980 15.10.1986 Rev. No. 167/1991 11.04.1997 2717/1997 filed by State dismissed 22.07.1997 28.07.1997 Retired 31.01.2018 WRIT PETITION NO. No. 102/1995 26.09.2000 5223/2004 admitted and stay 20.04.2006 01.10.1995 Peon 21 Baba Dada Shinde 07.09.1989 15.10.1986 Rev. No. 167/1991 11.04.1997 2717/1997 filed by State dismissed 22.07.1997 25.07.1997 Retired 31.07.2017 22 Shivaji Laxman Pisal 07.09.1980 15.10.1986 Rev. No. 167/1991 11.04.1997 2717/1997 filed by State dismissed 22.07.1997 28.07.1997 Retired 31.01.2018 WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2016 MURLIDHAR SITARAM KHAIRMODE AND 6 ORS V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Sr. No. Name of Petitioner Date of appointment Termination Reference ID No. & decision date High Court WP No. Date of Rejoining as per Court order Present Status 1 Murlidhar Sitaram Khairmode 02.06.1982 29.02.1988 Complaint ULP 62/95 01.08.1986 5223/2004 Admitted and stay 20.04.2006 05.10.1995 Retired 28.02.2018 2 Sarjerao Baburao Salunkhe 03.08.1979 10.01.1988 Complaint ULP 73/95 15.03.2004 3782/2004 Admitted and stay 21.08.1995 Retired 28.02.2016 3 Ashok Mahadeo Jadhav 01.08.1980 20.04.1988 Complaint ULP 8/95 15.03.2004 3755/2004 Admitted and stay 15.01.1995 Peon 4 Vasant Maruti Shinde 15.11.1978 20.04.1988 Complaint ULP 9/95 15.03.2004 3770/2004 Admitted and stay 16.01.1995 Retired on 31.05.2016 5 Deepak Ramchandra Patil 23.11.1978 01.10.1988 Complaint ULP 72/95 15.03.2004 3788/2004 Admitted and stay 21.06.1995 Peon 6 Vithal Parbati Pharande 24.02.1986 31.12.1988 Complaint ULP 21/95 15.03.2004 7162/2004 Dismissed for default CA St No. 12428/2018 19.01.1995 Peon 7 Murlidhar Bhikoba Shinde 24.02.1986 31.12.1988 Complaint ULP 22/95 15.03.2004 7162/2004 Dismissed for default CA St No. 12428/2018 19.01.1995 Peon WRIT PETITION NO. 4907 OF 2016 RAJARAM SHYAMRAO KOKARE AND ANR V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Sr. No. Name of Petitioner Date of appointment Termination Reference ID No. & decision date High Court WP No. Date of Rejoining as per Court order Present Status 1 Rajaram Shyamrao Kokare 27.07.1987 01.01.1990 23/92 01.10.1999 Nil 15.09.1993 Peon 2 Vilas Ramhari Pawar 06.10.1987 Not terminated. Complaint ULP No. 114/1990. Labour Court restrained from terminating services by order dated 26.03.1990 and same is dismissed on 11.02.1998 Nil Continuously he is in service Peon 10. We are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioners are absorbed from the date of the reference or filing of the complaints before Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunal as the case may be. The said date would undoubtedly have a rationale as the date when the dispute in respect of the petitioners' termination has taken to the Labour Court/Tribunal. The said date would undoubtedly have a rationale as the date when the dispute in respect of the petitioners' termination has taken to the Labour Court/Tribunal. However, we are conscious of the fact that the grant of absorption from the dates of filing of the reference/complaints would impose a financial burden on the State Government, we would therefore modulate the relief insofar as the liability on account of the arrears that would arise. We therefore, allow the petitions and issue the following directions: (i) The petitioners would be entitled to absorption in Government service from the date of filing of the reference/Complaint in the Labour Court/Industrial as the case may be, as shown in the tables hereinabove produced. The date should be assigned is the 1st of June of the particular year. For example in respect of the petitioner Kishor Digambar Gaikwad the date would be 01/06/1992. (ii) That the petitioners would not be entitled to any monetary benefits in the form of arrears on the said basis but the said date would be taken into consideration for notionally fixing the salary of the petitioners/Pension of such of the petitioners who have retired, for the purposes of seniority and promotional benefits, if applicable. The exercise of notionally fixing the salary of the petitioners who are in service, and pension of the petitioners who have retired would be done latest by 31st January 2019. (iii) Insofar as the petitioners who are in service, they would be paid salary after carrying out the exercise of notional fixation. The revised salary would be payable from December 2018. (iv) Insofar the petitioners whose petitions are pending in this Court, the date of absorption as stipulated by the instant Judgment would be subject to outcome of the said petitions. 11. The petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their own costs.