JUDGMENT & ORDER : M.R. Shah, J. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, all these Letters Patent Appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1261/2013 and other allied Special Civil Applications (main Special Civil Application No.10892/2003), the State and others have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. At the outset it is required to be noted that before the learned Single Judge some of the original petitioners were working as daily wagers, some were working as work charged employees and some were absorbed in the temporary establishment but were denied the benefits which may be available to the employees working in the temporary establishment. It was the case on behalf of the original petitioners that on completion of their 5 years' service as daily wagers, all those daily wagers were required to be absorbed in the work charged establishment. It was the case on behalf of those original petitioners who were working as work charged employees that as per the G.R. dated 16.08.1973, on completion of their 5 years' service as work charged employees, they are required to be absorbed/converted into temporary establishment and consequently they are entitled to the benefits which may be available to the employees working in the temporary establishment. It was the case on behalf of those original petitioners who were already converted into temporary establishment that they ought to have been converted into temporary establishment immediately on completion of their 5 years' service as work charged employees and consequently from that day they shall be entitled to the benefits which may be available to the employees working in the temporary establishment. At this stage it is required to be noted that by G.R. dated 20.08.2014, the earlier G.R. dated 16.08.1973 came to be canceled/revoked/withdrawn and therefore, considering/relying upon the said G.R. of 2014, those who were working as work charged employees were not converted into temporary establishment and therefore, some of them prayed to quash and set aside the G.R. dated 20.08.2014. That all the petitions were heard together alongwith Special Civil Application No.10829/2003. 4. That thereafter, after considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering section 9A of the ID Act, the learned Single Judge has observed and held and had come to the conclusion that the impugned G.R. of 2014 is not liable to be quashed only on the ground of violation of section 9A of the ID Act. However, thereafter, the learned Single Judge did not accept the objection on behalf of the State of alternative remedy available. That thereafter after considering the object of the G.R. dated 16.08.1973 and the fact that the respective petitioners are continued as work charged employees in the work charged establishment for three decades and after considering the various other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and discussed in paras 74 to 81 of the impugned common judgment and order and other decisions referred to in paras 88, 89, 92, 93, 96, 99, 100, 104, 105, 109, 110, 113 and 114, in para 120, the learned Single Judge has concluded in para 120 as under: "120. To sum up the principle deduced from the long chain of decided cases it can be said to be well settled: (i) In the matter of Government service normal rule is regular recruitment through prescribed agency, the recruitment of ad hoc or temporary hands is an exceptional leeway permitted due to exigencies of administration. In such a fact situation the endeavour will also be to replace such temporary employee by regular selected employees. (ii) that law does not favour ad hoc or temporary employment continuing for long spells, as it breeds unhealthy and unreasonable service environment endangering industrial peace perilously affecting dignity and quality of life of those whose security of work is under constant threat. (iii) Article 14 of the Constitution is embodiment of rule against arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the State action in all spheres of its activities. Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees protection against deprivation of life and personal liberty includes within it the right to dignified livelihood. Article 39(d) spells out the directive principles of the State policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both woman and man and Article 42 stipulates the Directive Principles of the State policy in securing just and humane conditions of work. Article 39(d) spells out the directive principles of the State policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both woman and man and Article 42 stipulates the Directive Principles of the State policy in securing just and humane conditions of work. (iv) equal pay for equal work and security of employment by regularising casual employees of long duration within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted as Constitutional goal to our policy. To this end, thrust has been that the management particularly Govt. agencies should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for unreasonably long period of time. (v) mere continuation for some period on ad hoc by itself does not give a right to permanency but where for any reason ad hoc or temporary or work charged employees are continued for fairly long spell they have a right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner. (vi) regularisation cannot be resorted to by the governmental agencies as mode of fresh recruitment to permit back door entries to frustrate the mandate of Article 16 by making a straight jacket measure of service for regularising the appointment made de hors the rules, unmindful of the circumstances under which the appointment had been made. (vii) the first condition for laying claim for regularisation is availability of work on reasonably permanent basis. Mere continuance for some time of a casual or ad hoc employee does not give right to presume about need for continued employment or work charged but continuation of casual or ad hoc employee or work charged for a long duration of several years raises a presumption for need for regular permanent employment may be justified. Mere continuance for some time of a casual or ad hoc employee does not give right to presume about need for continued employment or work charged but continuation of casual or ad hoc employee or work charged for a long duration of several years raises a presumption for need for regular permanent employment may be justified. (viii) Apart from the right to reasonable treatment by the State agencies and security of job emanating from the Constitutional provisions, Industrial Disputes Act is a legislative measure giving effect to the directive principles of State Policy in the field of ensuring equal pay for equal work and ensuring security of job with just and humane conditions by providing prohibition against practising of unfair labour practice both by employers and employees and defining the term unfair labour practice to include practice of engaging workman for long spells characterising them badli, casual, temporary, ad hoc work charged with the object of denying them the status of permanency and benefits and privileges attached thereto. (ix) A claim by workers, continuing for long spell as casual or temporary or work charged under an employer governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, to permanency is a demand which can be achieved through collective bargaining or a claim giving rise to a industrial dispute which can be enforced through adjudication under the provisions of the I.D. Act. (x) Adjudication of claim for permanent status as an industrial dispute which has been made subject matter of reference to the Industrial tribunal is governed by the principles emanating from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which by necessary implication involves determination of question whether continued casual or temporary employment is a bonafide administrative exigency simplicitor or amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the employer, inasmuch as claim to permanency under Industrial Disputes Act directly emanates from prohibition against unfair labour practice adopted by the employer. (xi) In situation emerging from long spell of ad hoc or temporary or casual employment of daily rated workmen, courts have consistently resorted to issue of directions for framing a scheme for regularisation of such workmen on a just and fair basis to the employer or have also issue of directions for regularising the petitioners before it as the circumstances of the case may warrant but ordinarily in the first instance an opportunity is being given to the employer himself to frame a scheme in a fair and just manner of absorbing such casual workmen on permanent basis whether in one go or in a phased manner and has considered objections thereto, if any, before according its approval to such scheme. (xii) In considering the question of granting relief as to conferring status of permanency and emoluments and privileges attached thereto, primary consideration is existence of permanent nature of work for such casual employees to be utilised against it and the extent of absorption on regular and permanent basis depends upon the extent of regular work available against which temporary employee can be regularly employed. Regularisation or permanency is not to be resorted in case where the establishment by itself is of temporary nature; where the employment is not with the object of offering employment but for ameliorating financial condition of weaker sections of the society like employment under Jawahar Yojana or where employment has been secured or offered by committing illegalities, irregularities or fraud as in the case of Ashwani Kumar where the appointments were found to have been given to six thousand persons out of all proportion to the then existing requirement of the project for about 800 persons only, by the Director of the project Mr. Malik by committing illegalities, irregularities and fraud as per the investigation report. In which case the appointments against rules were held to be nullity and void ad initio." That thereafter after discussing and/or considering the decisions relied upon on behalf of the State, by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has concluded finally in para 147 as under: "147. My final conclusion is as under: (I) The writ applications are maintainable and are not liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other appropriate Legislation. My final conclusion is as under: (I) The writ applications are maintainable and are not liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other appropriate Legislation. (II) The action of the State Government, in not absorbing the writ applicants in the temporary establishment from the work charged on completion of five years of continuous service and fulfillment of other conditions, is contrary to the concept of social and economic justice. The State, as a model employer, should not have guillotined the legitimate aspirations of the employees. It created a situation with hopes ending in despair. (III) Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has no role to play as such and the issue raised is of no significance. (IV) The Government Resolution of the year 2014 impugned in these writ applications being a policy matter is not disturbed, but at the same time, the writ applicants are entitled to the benefits of the earlier policy, more particularly, when such policy remained in force for forty one years and the writ applicants have been serving past almost thirty years." At this stage it is required to be noted that as such the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer to declare the resolution of 2014 as per se illegal or unconstitutional being a policy matter. However, has observed that when the Government has thought it fit to change the policy decision by revoking the earlier G.R. of 1973, let it be so, but atleast so far as the employees working as on date on the work charged establishment are concerned, they are entitled to the benefits of the earlier policy more particularly when such policy remained in force for 41 years and the petitioners have been serving past almost 30 years. That thereafter, by impugned common judgment and order the learned Single Judge has allowed all the petitions in part and has issued the final directions in para 148 as under: "148. In the result, all the writ applications are allowed in part. That thereafter, by impugned common judgment and order the learned Single Judge has allowed all the petitions in part and has issued the final directions in para 148 as under: "148. In the result, all the writ applications are allowed in part. (I) The State Government is directed to absorb the writ applicants in the temporary establishment from the work charged and grant them the benefits as stated below: (a) The State Government will first fix the date on which the writ applicants became eligible for being absorbed on the temporary establishment in terms of the earlier policy which was prevailing. Whatever date is fixed in that regard, thereafter nine years period should be considered as having worked on the temporary establishment. To put it in clear terms, say for instance, if an employee was eligible to be absorbed in the work charged establishment in the year 1995, then he would have been entitled to the first higher pay scale after putting in nine years of service on the temporary establishment i.e. 1995 + 9 = 2004. The benefits shall be calculated accordingly. (II) So far as the Daily Wagers are concerned, the State Government is directed to absorb them on the work charged establishment from the date they were otherwise eligible to be absorbed. For example, if they would have been absorbed in the year 1995, then the benefits would accrue nine years thereafter i.e. 2004. I expect the State Government, as a model employer, to act accordingly and expeditiously. (III) If any of the petitioners have retired/expired, then those petitioners shall also be entitled to the benefits in above terms and they or their legal heirs, as the case may be, shall be paid the amount falling due by virtue of this order expeditiously." 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge more particularly the directions contained in para 148 of the impugned common judgment and order, the State and others have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge more particularly the directions contained in para 148 of the impugned common judgment and order, the State and others have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 6. The statement showing the particulars of the number of Letters Patent Appeal and the respective Special Civil Application against which the Letters Patent Appeals are preferred is as under: Sr No. LPA No. SCA No. 1 1778/2017 1261/2013 2 1924/2017 8380/2015 3 2140/2017 2229/2014 4 1691/2017 3344/2013 5 1692/2017 16645/2014 6 2079/2017 6743/2016 7 2193/2017 5403/2016 8 2199/2017 7573/2016 9 2203/2017 4008/2016 10 2204/2017 17293/2012 11 2205/2017 17294/2012 12 2206/2017 17295/2012 13 2207/2017 17296/2012 14 2208/2017 17297/2012 15 2209/2017 17298/2012 16 2210/2017 17299/2012 17 2211/2017 17300/2012 18 2212/2017 17301/2012 19 2213/2017 17302/2012 20 2214/2017 17303/2012 21 2215/2017 17304/2012 22 2216/2017 17305/2012 23 2217/2017 17306/2012 24 2218/2017 17307/2012 25 2219/2017 17308/2012 26 2220/2017 17309/2012 27 2221/2017 17310/2012 28 2222/2017 17311/2012 29 2223/2017 17312/2012 30 2224/2017 17313/2012 31 2225/2017 17314/2012 32 2226/2017 17315/2012 33 2227/2017 17316/2012 34 2228/2017 17317/2012 35 2229/2017 17318/2012 36 2230/2017 17319/2012 37 2231/2017 17320/2012 38 2232/2017 17321/2012 39 2233/2017 17322/2012 40 2234/2017 17323/2012 41 2235/2017 17324/2012 42 2236/2017 17325/2012 43 2237/2017 17326/2012 44 2238/2017 17327/2012 45 2239/2017 17328/2012 46 2242/2017 7603/2016 47 1434/2017 2120/2012 48 2241/2017 7863/2016 49 2247/2017 7919/2016 50 455/2017 4772/2016 51 651/2017 11973/2009 52 297/2017 4575/2014 53 1948/2017 4440/2016 54 2106/2017 17252/2012 55 2107/2017 17253/2012 56 2108/2017 17254/2012 57 2109/2017 17255/2012 58 2110/2017 17256/2012 59 2111/2017 17257/2012 60 2112/2017 17258/2012 61 2113/2017 17259/2012 62 2116/2017 17262/2012 63 2117/2017 17263/2012 64 2118/2017 17264/2012 65 2119/2017 17265/2012 66 2120/2017 17266/2012 67 2119/2017 17265/2012 68 2120/2017 17266/2012 69 2121/2017 17267/2012 70 2122/2017 17268/2012 71 2123/2017 17269/2012 72 2124/2017 17270/2012 73 2125/2017 17271/2012 74 2126/2017 17272/2012 75 2127/2017 17273/2012 76 2128/2017 17274/2012 77 2129/2017 17275/2012 78 731/2017 17027/2012 79 2541/2017 22302/2007 80 2542/2017 22303/2007 81 2543/2017 22304/2007 82 2544/2017 22305/2007 83 2545/2017 22306/2007 84 2546/2017 22307/2007 85 2547/2017 22308/2007 86 2548/2017 22309/2007 87 2549/2017 22310/2007 88 2550/2017 22311/2017 89 2551/2017 22312/2017 90 2552/2017 22313/2007 91 2553/2017 22314/2007 92 2554/2017 22315/2007 93 2555/2017 22316/2007 94 2556/2017 22317/2007 95 2557/2017 22318/2007 96 2558/2017 22319/2007 97 2559/2017 22320/2007 98 2560/2017 22321/2007 99 2561/2017 22322/2007 100 2562/2017 22323/2007 101 2563/2017 22324/2007 102 2564/2017 22325/2007 103 2565/2017 22326/2007 104 2566/2017 22327/2007 105 2567/2017 22328/2007 106 2568/2017 22329/2007 107 2569/2017 22330/2007 108 2570/2017 22331/2007 109 2571/2017 22332/2007 110 2572/2017 22333/2007 111 2573/2017 22334/2007 112 2574/2017 22335/2007 113 2575/2017 22336/2007 114 2576/2017 22337/2007 115 2577/2017 22338/2007 116 2578/2017 22339/2007 117 1536/2017 7582/2016 118 1893/2017 7093/2016 119 2201/2017 3328/2016 120 2446/2017 6543/2014 121 2447/2017 6544/2014 122 2448/2017 6545/2014 123 2449/2017 6546/2014 124 2450/2017 6547/2014 125 2451/2017 6548/2014 126 2452/2017 6549/2014 127 2453/2017 6550/2014 128 2624/2017 3327/2016 129 146/2018 5352/2015 7. Heard Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General with Ms. Sangita Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat and Others in respective Letters Patent Appeals and Shri T.R. Mishra, Shri N.K. Majmudar, Shri H.B. Singh, Shri Murli Devanani, Shri U.T. Mishra, Shri Kuntal Joshi, Shri M.P. Prajapati, Shri Pinakin Raval, Shri J.A. Adeshra, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective original petitioners. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents - original petitioners in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1948/2017, 2541/2017, 2578/2017, 1893/2017, 2201/2017, 2446/2017 to 2453/2017 and 2624/2017. 8. At the outset it is required to be noted that out of 129 Letters Patent Appeals, majority of the Letters Patent Appeals are against the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Special Civil Applications. Rest of the Letters Patent Appeals are against the respective orders passed by the very learned Single Judge but passed in respective Special Civil Applications following the decision in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and the similar directions have been issued in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Special Civil Applications in the common judgment and order dated 04.02.2016. Therefore, the issues are common and as such following the decision in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Special Civil Applications. 9. There is a broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties that whatever the decision by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016 in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Letters Patent Appeals, will govern the decision in the present Letters Patent Appeals also. [9.1] That by common CAV judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016 in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court has partly allowed the said appeals to the extent quashing and setting aside the directions in the case of daily wagers and restricting the relief’s in case of work charged employees. The operative portion of the common CAV judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016 in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Letters Patent Appeals is as under: "[21.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these Letters Patent Appeals are partly allowed to the extent quashing and setting aside the impugned directions in case of daily wagers and the direction that on completion of their 5 years' service they shall be absorbed in the work charged establishment and they shall be paid all consequential benefits, is hereby quashed and set aside. However, all those daily wagers shall be entitled to the benefits flowing from the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and if not paid, they shall be paid such benefits accordingly. [21.1] So far as the impugned direction/s in respect of work charged employees namely all those work charged employees to be absorbed/converted to temporary establishment on their completion of 5 years' service and they shall be paid the consequential benefits accordingly is hereby quashed and set aside and is modified to the extent and it is held that all those petitioners – work charged employees who have worked for more than 20 years as work charged employees shall be entitled to conversion to temporary establishment as per the G.R. dated 16.08.1973 from the date on which they complete 20 years of service as work charged and they shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to the employees working in the temporary establishment, including the benefit of higher pay scale/grade if at all the same is being paid to the employees working in the temporary establishment, however they shall be paid the arrears on such conversion to temporary establishment for the period preceding 3 years of filing of the respective petitions. The arrears shall be calculated and paid within a period of 4 months from today, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is also directed that in case any of the work charged employee has retired, he shall be paid the retirement benefits as if he was converted to temporary establishment provided such employee has worked for not less than 20 years as work charged employee and retirement benefits be calculated and paid accordingly, however they shall be paid the arrears for 3 years only. Such exercise also shall be completed within period of four months from today. Present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." Therefore, the present group of Letters Patent Appeals are also required to be disposed of in terms of the recent common CAV judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.380/2016 in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Letters Patent Appeals as the issues are common and even most of the Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the very common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Special Civil Applications and it can be said that most of the Letters Patent Appeals in the present group of Letters Patent Appeals can be said to be left out matters and in other Special Civil Applications against which the Letters Patent Appeals are preferred, the order passed in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Special Civil Applications has been followed. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in detailed common CAV judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.380/2016 in Special Civil Application No.10829/2003 and other allied Letters Patent Appeals, all these Letters Patent Appeals are partly allowed to the extent quashing and setting aside the impugned directions in case of daily wagers and the direction that on completion of their 5 years' service they shall be absorbed in the work charged establishment and they shall be paid all consequential benefits, is hereby quashed and set aside. However, all those daily wagers shall be entitled to the benefits flowing from the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and if not paid, they shall be paid such benefits accordingly. However, all those daily wagers shall be entitled to the benefits flowing from the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and if not paid, they shall be paid such benefits accordingly. [10.1] So far as the impugned direction/s in respect of work charged employees namely all those work charged employees to be absorbed/converted to temporary establishment on their completion of 5 years' service and they shall be paid the consequential benefits accordingly is hereby quashed and set aside and is modified to the extent and it is held that all those petitioners - work charged employees who have worked for more than 20 years as work charged employees shall be entitled to conversion to temporary establishment as per the G.R. dated 16.08.1973 from the date on which they complete 20 years of service as work charged and they shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to the employees working in the temporary establishment, including the benefit of higher pay scale/grade if at all the same is being paid to the employees working in the temporary establishment, however they shall be paid the arrears on such conversion to temporary establishment for the period preceding 3 years of filing of the respective petitions. The arrears shall be calculated and paid within a period of 4 months from today, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is also directed that in case any of the work charged employee has retired, he shall be paid the retirement benefits as if he was converted to temporary establishment provided such employee has worked for not less than 20 years as work charged employee and retirement benefits be calculated and paid accordingly, however they shall be paid the arrears for 3 years only. Such exercise also shall be completed within period of four months from today. Present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.