JUDGMENT & ORDER : MOHINDER PAL, J. 1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Samiti has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to regularize their services and to treat them at par with similarly situated persons in other districts by the State of Gujarat from the date of their initial appointments as Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) with consequential and incidental benefits. Petitioner has also challenged the order of termination dated 6.1.2018 vide which during the pendency of the petition, their services have been terminated. 2. In order to fill up the posts of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Class-III, by direct recruitment, by issuing advertisement on various dates, the petitioners were appointed as Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) in different districts of the State of Gujarat from the year 2003 onwards. As an example, in one case, copy of the orders issued by the District Panchayat, Bhavnagar has been enclosed with the petition. The petitioners continued to discharge their duties on ad-hoc basis on fixed pay. However, their services were not regularized. Accordingly, the petitioners of this petition along with many others by way of different writ petitions approached this Court seeking directions that Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) be given benefit of regular pay scale as admissible to the regularly selected Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male). 3. Though, these petitions were required to be heard together, some of these petitions were disposed of by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 7.7.2011 in which directions were issued to the State Government to consider the case of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who were working on ad-hoc basis for grant of regular pay and pay scales. Thereafter, some more petitions including Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 came to be disposed of on August 10, 2016 wherein, the petitioners were granted benefit of regularization with retrospective effect as was granted to them vide interim order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the State Government in case of similarly situated persons in Sabarkantha District. Respondents of that case were directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularization of their services from the initial date of their appointment as has been done in similarly situated cases with consequential benefits. The petitions were allowed and rule was made absolute. 4. Respondents of that case were directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularization of their services from the initial date of their appointment as has been done in similarly situated cases with consequential benefits. The petitions were allowed and rule was made absolute. 4. In the reply filed by respondents, claim of the petitioners have been disputed mainly on the ground that, the initial appointment of the petitioners was on ad-hoc basis and on fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- and as their appointments were temporary and contractual, benefit of regularization in services, cannot be granted. Written statement in this regard is available at page No.105. 5. Some interim orders have been passed and in response to one of the interim orders, respondent No.1 and 4 have filed another short reply which is reproduced as under:- 1. Petitioners in this petition are appointed by District Panchayats and are considered as employees of Panchayat Department. 2. The applicability of the judgment delivered in SCA No.6289 of 2011 on 10.08.2016 to the petitioners of the above petition is required to be examined by Panchayat Department as the decision to implement the said judgment was taken by the Panchayat Department. 3. A proposal was submitted to Health & F.W. Department on 12.10.2017 to revise the remuneration of Rs. 2500/- being paid to the petitioners equivalent to the minimum wages as per minimum wages act amounting to Rs. 9400/-. 4. On the said proposal Health & FW Department in consultation with Finance Department took a decision to relieve the petitioners working as M.P.H.Ws (Male) on contrctual basis on a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 2500/- which was communicated to Commissionerate of Health M.S. & M.E. Gandhinagar (Respondent No.4) vide letter dated 5.1.2018. 5. The aforesaid decision was communicated to all the District Panchayats for taking appropriate actions vide letter dated 6.1.2018 by respondent No.4. 6. As per information available with respondent No.4 certain District Panchayats relieved the MPHWs (Male) working on contractual basis. 7. As the MPHWs who were relieved from the service approached respondent No.4 to reinstate them on job. 8. Respondent No.4, made a proposal to respondent No.1 to reconsider the decision issued vide letter dated 5.1.2018. 9. On the basis of the oral order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 24.07.2018, the following immediate actions were taken by respondent No.1 and 4. 8. Respondent No.4, made a proposal to respondent No.1 to reconsider the decision issued vide letter dated 5.1.2018. 9. On the basis of the oral order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 24.07.2018, the following immediate actions were taken by respondent No.1 and 4. (a) A detailed proposal was submitted by respondent No.4 to respondent No.1 to consider the issue immediately. (b) The proposal was taken in to consideration by Health & FW Department at the level of Additional Chief Secretary and the file was referred to Additional Chief Secretary (Finance Department) on 24.7.2018 itself, as the decision to the relieve the petitioners was taken at the level of Finance Department. (c) After receiving the required concurrence from the Finance Department necessary actions will be taken. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The fact that the petitioners are appointed by the District Panchayats and are considered as employees of Panchayat Department are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that State has recognized their services from the date of initial appointment. These petitioners are working as Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) and were getting fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/- which was the minimum wages at the relevant time. From the aforementioned reply, it is apparent that increase in the minimum wages was recommended from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 9,400/-. Case of the petitioners was sent to the Finance Department to take a decision for increasing remuneration of the petitioners. It is unfortunate that in place of granting the minimum wages to the petitioners, the respondents-State Government has taken a decision to relieve the petitioners working on contractual basis. Accordingly, despite this petition was pending in the Court, the respondents vide their letter dated 5.1.2018, terminated the services of the petitioners. 7. It is admitted that initially, petitioners were given contractual appointment for 11 months and thereafter, they have been continued for all these years. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/-. The main ground of the respondents in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners and terminating their services is that initial appointment was on contractual basis. 8. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/-. The main ground of the respondents in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners and terminating their services is that initial appointment was on contractual basis. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that such stand of the State Government in terminating the services of the petitioners, despite the fact that, petition of similarly situated other petitioners was allowed way back in the year 2011 and 2016. In these proceedings, respondents were party and decision was in the knowledge of the respondents. Case of the petitioners for increasing of remuneration from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 9400/- was forwarded by Health and Family Welfare Department for consideration to the Finance Department. Finance Department in place of taking decision in favour of the employees have passed an order vide which the District Panchayats have been directed to terminate the services of the petitioners who have been working for considerable long time. 9. While disposing of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, this Court has held as under. 25. It may be true that in the case of District Rajkot, similarly situated MPHW(M) have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat. However, it is obvious that in the case of Sabarkantha District Panchayat, the services of MPHW (M), who are identically situated to the petitioners, have been regularized, with restrospective effect, by the State Government, itself. The State Government has taken a policy decision in this regard, confined only to the MPHW (M) of Sabarkantha District. Why all similarly situated MPHW (M) in other Districts of the State have not been covered under a uniform policy, is certainly baffling. Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) such as petitioners, who were appointed on adhoc basis but have been denied the fruits of regular appointment only because the regular selection process was not fhled until they had crossed the permissible age-limit, from a distinct class of employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. This would amount to sub-classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by confirming the decision only to MPHW (M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts. They, therefore, cannot be accorded discriminatory treatment. This would amount to sub-classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by confirming the decision only to MPHW (M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts. They, therefore, cannot be accorded discriminatory treatment. The respondent authorities are not only trying to take advantage of the situation but are also trying to put the blame on each other which cannot be permitted, to the detriment of the petitioners. 10. From the aforementioned judgment, it is clear that Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have worked continuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse or the other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners by treating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for which they were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break, they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cut finding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in these proceedings. 11. As a result of aforementioned discussion, termination order dated 6.1.2018 is quashed and set aside and this petition is allowed in the same terms as Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 decided on 10th August, 2016. Petitioners will be regularized in the same manner from the same date as in the aforementioned oral order. Rule is made absolute. 12. In view of order passed in main petition, this civil application listed with the main matter does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.