JUDGMENT : Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard and decided analogously by this common judgment. 1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011. He has submitted that the petitioners are also similarly situated to the employees of the aforesaid writ petition and similar directions may be issued to the State authorities for conferring the benefits as prayed in the present petitions. It is submitted that except the designation that the petitioners are Female Health Workers and the judgment is in favour of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male), there is no difference. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions are incorporated from Special Civil Application No.889 of 2013 as under: 2.1 The petitioner, after undergoing the training of one and half years course of Female Health Worker Training Committee, Health and Medical Department, Gujarat State, and after passing necessary examination, they were issued a certificate to that effect dated 30.03.1991 and they joined the service after passing the training from the institute in the years 1991 and 1997. 2.2 The petitioners also passed C.C.C. (Course on Computer Concepts) in the year 2009. The advertisement being No.6/2010-2011 came to be published by the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board, Ahmedabad, inviting applications Female Health Workers (Class-III), for various Panchayats, including that of District Pachayat, Kheda which came to be published Gujarat Samachar dated 04.03.2011. 2.3 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of Female Health Worker as it was a condition imposed in the appointment letter dated 13.06.2007 that the petitioner has to pass the examination, which would be held by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Kheda. 2.4 Accordingly, the petitioner received one admit card which was issued on 14/16.06.2012 by the respondent no.4 directing the petitioner to appear in the examination, which was to be held on 30.06.2012 and 01.07.2012. The petitioner appeared in the written examination as per the letter dated 14/16.06.2012. 2.5 The petitioner received one letter from respondent no.4 dated 29.09.2012 directing the petitioner to remain present on 03.10.2012 for verification of all the certificates as the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination, which was held by Kheda District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. The petitioner appeared in the written examination as per the letter dated 14/16.06.2012. 2.5 The petitioner received one letter from respondent no.4 dated 29.09.2012 directing the petitioner to remain present on 03.10.2012 for verification of all the certificates as the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination, which was held by Kheda District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. 2.6 The Kheda District Panchayat Service Selection Committee had prepared select list on the basis of the result of the examination which was held on 30.06.2012 and on 01.07.2012, wherein the petitioner was found as successful candidate. The petitioner was shown in the select list at serial no.8 having common merit number 12 and selection rank number 8. 2.7 The respondent authority had issued another letter 02.01.2013 asking the petitioner to give choice of place of posting. Accordingly, the petitioner had requested that she may be continued on the same place of posting where she has been working till date. 2.8 By the order dated 10.01.2013, the petitioner is appointed on the temporary basis on the post of Female Health Worker in the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 by treating the appointment as afresh. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners their earlier services are not joined for the aforesaid purpose. He has submitted that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 in fact were given the benefits of regularization though they have crossed permissible age limit and also failed in the examination. He has submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the various judgments on this issue had directed the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect to the Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male). 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners are only denied the benefit of the aforesaid judgment for the reason that the same pertain to the Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) employees of Sabarkantha District, whereas in the present case, the petitioners are Female Health Workers belonged to Kheda District. It is submitted that except the difference in the district, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.08.2016. He has further submitted that in other districts being Surendranagar, Rajkot, Sabarkantha and Junagadh, the Multi Purpose Health Workers have been granted the benefit of regularization and their post services. It is submitted that except the difference in the district, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.08.2016. He has further submitted that in other districts being Surendranagar, Rajkot, Sabarkantha and Junagadh, the Multi Purpose Health Workers have been granted the benefit of regularization and their post services. Thus, he has submitted that the present petitioners, who are working as Female Health Workers, cannot be discriminated since they stand on better traction and the Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) of other districts since they have cleared the departmental examination and recruitment process. 4. Learned AGP Mr.Ishan Joshi has submitted that the petitioners cannot be directly conferred the aforesaid benefits since it appears that some of the petitioners have not cleared the departmental examination. Thus, he has submitted that since the petitioners have not cleared the departmental examination, they are not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. 5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the petitioners has submitted that in Kheda District, the examinations were held in 2001, whereas the petitioners are appointed in the year 1977 and for all these years, no examination was held. He has submitted that identical issue had cropped up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and this Court has also considered similar objection raised by the respondents and thereafter ordered the respondent authorities to confer the benefits of regularization. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. This Court has perused the judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011. 7. The in depth analysis of the judgment reveals that the issue raised in the present petitions is squarely covered. The only difference is that the petitioners in the present writ petitions belonged to Kheda District, and are working as Female Health Workers whereas the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 were of Junagadh District are serving as Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male). 8. This Court, after threadbare analysis of all the relevant aspects as well as the contentions raised by both the sides in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, has observed thus: “33. As held by this Court in the above judgment, aging is a process which nobody can stop. 8. This Court, after threadbare analysis of all the relevant aspects as well as the contentions raised by both the sides in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, has observed thus: “33. As held by this Court in the above judgment, aging is a process which nobody can stop. This aspect ought to have been considered by respondent No.3 while including Condition No.10 in the appointment orders of the petitioners and while issuing the advertisement for regular selection in the year 1996. It was not in the hands of the petitioners to have stopped the clock from running. However, it was very much in the hands of respondent No.3 to have held the selection process well in time, so that persons such as the petitioners, who have been appointed by it subject to the condition that they would have to participate in the regular selection process, would have got a fair chance. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the totally unconcerned and casual approach on the part of the District Panchayat. 34. At the same time, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the State Government is supposed to be a model employer. It would have behoved the State Government to have framed a uniform policy for MPHW(M) such as the petitioners, covering the entire State of Gujarat, instead of confining the decision only to those MPHW(M) working in Sabarkantha District, as has been done vide the order dated 13.10.2009. This would have ensured equal treatment to all similarly situated MPHW(M) throughout the State, irrespective of the District in which they are working. The fact that a decision has not been taken for all MPHW(M) but only for those working in a particular District, has caused a great deal of anguish and heart­burning to the petitioners, which is quite understandable, considering that they have been discriminated for no fault of their own. 35. The fact that a decision has not been taken for all MPHW(M) but only for those working in a particular District, has caused a great deal of anguish and heart­burning to the petitioners, which is quite understandable, considering that they have been discriminated for no fault of their own. 35. As a result of the above discussion and for the aforestated reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioners deserve to be granted the benefits of regularization with retrospective effect, as have been granted by the order dated 13.10.2009, passed by the State Government in the case of similarly situated persons in Sabarkantha District.” This Court had also observed that the Multi Purpose Health Workers working in Sabarkantha District had already been conferred the benefits of regularization vide order dated 13.10.2009 and the employees of Junagadh District cannot be discriminated. 9. In the present case, the Female Health Workers of Kheda District are discriminated and such discrimination cannot be allowed in wake of the fact that the State authorities have granted the benefits of regularization in Sabarkantha, Junagadh and Rajkot Districts to Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male). It is also noticed that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the factor of the employees being over-age and some of them had also not passed the examinations. The facts recorded in the judgment reveal that some of the employees had even failed in the recruitment process, which had taken place on 30.03.1996. Despite the aforesaid facts, the Court has directed to regularize the service of the Multi Purpose Health Workers of Junagadh District from the date of initial appointment. 10. It is also not in dispute that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also held that once the Multi Purpose Health Workers, who are engaged on contractual basis after given breaks, are entitled to regularize in service since they have cleared the recruitment process. It is also noticed that the petitioners have also cleared the examination and once they have participated in the regular selection process, their earlier services cannot be wiped out and they are required to be treated as regular employees by conferring the continuity of service. It is reported that the aforesaid judgment is implemented by the State authorities. 11. Under the circumstances, the present petitioners cannot be discriminated only because they are working as Female Health Workers. It is reported that the aforesaid judgment is implemented by the State authorities. 11. Under the circumstances, the present petitioners cannot be discriminated only because they are working as Female Health Workers. The writ petitions succeed in light of the judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011. The respondents are hereby directed to confer the benefits of past service to the petitioners from the initial date of appointment treating them as continuous in terms of the judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011. 12. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.