JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondents to give him benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed on the vacant post by the respondents by calling applications and the petitioner was selected as a driver by conducting driving test and was appointed with effect from 21.07.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he was denied the benefit of time scale of pay and on demanding better conditions of service, he was terminated from service with effect from 30.11.1993. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court by way of filing Reference (L.C.A.) No.106 of 1994, which came to be allowed vide award dated 05.09.1997. 2.1 It is stated that since the respondents did not comply with the directions of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application for initiating contempt vide Misc. Civil Application No.956 of 1999 before this Court which was disposed of by the Court observing that the petitioner can file a fresh Special Civil Application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999 and prayed for extending the benefits of continuity of service to the petitioner as per award of the Labour Court and also for extending the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Court rejected the Special Civil Application holding that the respondents have complied with the award of the Labour Court and so far as grant of benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is concerned, it was observed that since the petitioner is employed after the year 1988, he would not be entitled to get the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1632 of 2005, which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.2005 observing that the petitioner shall have a liberty to approach the learned Single Judge by way of Review Application. 2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for review/recalling the order of the Single Judge being Misc. Application No.2579 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999. 2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for review/recalling the order of the Single Judge being Misc. Application No.2579 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999. At the time of hearing of the application, the Court was of the opinion that so far the grievance of the petitioner for challenging the validity of Government Resolution is concerned, liberty was reserved in his favour to agitate the issue of claiming the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya has submitted that he is not pressing the present petition for prayer at Paragraph No.20-B, wherein the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been challenged. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Acharya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.07.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013 and allied matters (in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. PWD Employees Union). 3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Acharya has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors., 2019 (3) SCALE 642 . Thus, he has submitted that the respondent may be directed to give the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raval has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefits since he was appointed after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and hence, the said Resolution has no applicability to the daily wagers, who are appointed prior to issuance of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He has further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors. (supra) has laid down the parameters with regard to the applicability of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, but the same would not apply to the facts of the present case. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. The petitioner approached the Labour Court and this Court as well a for claiming the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Ultimately, in the order dated 07.08.2007 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2579 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999, this Court has observed thus: “1. By filing affidavit of Dy. 6. The petitioner approached the Labour Court and this Court as well a for claiming the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Ultimately, in the order dated 07.08.2007 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2579 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999, this Court has observed thus: “1. By filing affidavit of Dy. Director of Animal Husbandry (FMD) Typing Scheme, it is repeatedly denied that the policy under Resolution dt. 17.10.1988 was a permanent policy. It is stated that clarifications at 30th May, 1989 were not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as he was appointed on 1.7.1991, i.e. after implementation of aforesaid Resolution dt. 17.10.1988. Thus, supporting the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is asserted on behalf of the respondent that the clarifications relied upon by the applicant are applicable only to the employees appointed on or before 17.10.88 and that no employee, appointed after implementation of aforesaid Govt. Resolution dt. 17.10.1988, were given its benefits. 2. Learned counsel Mr.Pathak, appearing for the applicant submitted that there were several cases in which benefits of Resolution dt 17.10.88 were extended to the employees, who were appointed after the said date and, therefore, the applicant could still agitate the issue of hostile discrimination. He fairly conceded, however, that it could only be a subject matter of an independent fresh petition and could not be looked into in the present petition for reviewing judgment and order dt. 20th July 2001 in SCA/10505/1999. It was also submitted that the petitioner may as well challenged the validity of Resolution dt 17.10.1988 in a substantive petition. 3. Therefore the present petition is dismissed with the clarification that the petitioner shall have liberty to agitate the issue of discrimination and claims the benefit of Resolution dt 17.10.1988, if they were due to him or he were eligible to obtain the same, or to challenge the Resolution itself. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.” 7. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been denied to the petitioner only for the reason that he was employed on 01.07.1991, i.e. after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 8. The issue raised in the present petition about conferring the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to those employees, who are appointed after the aforesaid resolution, has been extensively dealt with by this Court in various judgments. 8. The issue raised in the present petition about conferring the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to those employees, who are appointed after the aforesaid resolution, has been extensively dealt with by this Court in various judgments. In the judgment of Division Bench dated 16.07.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013, while examining the issue of grant of the benefits like Transport Allowance, Traveling Allowance, Transfer Traveling Allowance, Leave Encashment and Leave Travel Concessions to those employees, who are appointed after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, this Court after considering various judgments on the issue had directed the respondent authorities to confer such allowance to those employees, who are appointed after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Division Bench has observed thus: “10. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the fact that the respondents in above Letters Patent Appeals are daily wagers. Before us, there are two sets of daily wagers. One set of daily wagers appointed upto the year 1988 are given all benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. However, benefits like Transport Allowance, Traveling Allowance, Transfer Traveling Allowance, Leave Encashment and Leave Travel Concessions have not been extended to them. Whereas another set of daily wagers were appointed after 30.11.1994 and they are not given any benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, though they have put in more than five/ten/fifteen years of service. 11. As regards daily wagers appointed upto the year 1988, it is the case of the appellants that the benefits accorded to the permanent employees could not be extended to them as they do not hold any post. It has come to our notice that similar issues were raised in Special Civil Application Nos.5699 of 1987; 517 of 1988 and 6783 of 1988, decided on 02.05.2000. The petitions were allowed with a direction that all the workmen concerned be treated as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and that they shall be granted all the benefits as such. Being aggrieved with the said order, Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters were filed which were decided on 18.03.2011. The petitions were allowed with a direction that all the workmen concerned be treated as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and that they shall be granted all the benefits as such. Being aggrieved with the said order, Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters were filed which were decided on 18.03.2011. Notwithstanding the fact that earlier in Special Civil Application No.26790 of 2007 and cognate matters, the learned Single Judge had vide Order dated 01.07.2009 rejected similar contention of the petitioner and the said Order was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No.2117 of 2010 decided on 11.10.2010; the Division Bench of this Court dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters, reported in (2011) 2 GLR 1290 . The said judgment and order was challenged before the Supreme Court which was rejected vide Order dated 09.11.2012 recorded in Special Leave to Petition (Civil) Nos.35043-35048 of 2012. Thus, the decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters, decided on 18.03.2011 has attained finality and all issues are properly addressed. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the grievance raised by the respondents, i.e original petitioners in Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 is already answered by the Division Bench of this Court. We are in full agreement with the above decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. Independent of this, we are of the considered opinion that these benefits in nature of allowances and concessions are incidental to services and they should be normally granted to such employees when they are treated at par with other regular employees. In view of the above, Letter Patel Appeal No.789 of 2013 fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Now, we may proceed to examine the case of the daily wagers appointed after 30.11.1994. It is the contention of the appellants that the Board had taken a policy decision on 30.11.1994 that no new daily wagers be appointed. Still, they were appointed without prior permission or even intimation to the higher authorities, for which penalties are imposed on number of officers for breach of administrative instructions issued on 30.11.1994. The appointment as daily wagers at the grass root level are without following any regular procedure laid down for regular recruitment and therefore they do not have any right of regularization or the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 13. The appointment as daily wagers at the grass root level are without following any regular procedure laid down for regular recruitment and therefore they do not have any right of regularization or the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 13. It is an admitted position that the appellant – Board adopted the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as a policy vide its circular dated 08.06.1989. The said Resolution, inter-alia, provides that no appointment as daily wager shall be made by any office thereafter. Still, daily wagers continued to be appointed by the Board and they were given benefits flowing from the aforesaid Government Resolution. Thereafter the appellant Board reiterated its policy vide another Circular dated 30.11.1994 that no daily wager shall be appointed but still hundreds of daily wagers came to be appointed after 30.11.1994 and now the Board denies to extend the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to such daily wagers appointed after 30.11.1994 terming their appointment as illegal, which cannot be accepted as it is arbitrary and bad in law. On one hand, the Board issues circular that no daily wagers shall be appointed from 30.11.1994 and still the very Board appoint hundreds of daily wagers in gross violation of their own policy and after passage of more than 15 years terming the action of appointing these daily wagers as illegal cannot be accepted and needs to be rejected. The Board cannot punish others for their own wrongdoings. It is a settled legal proposition that a person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum. If a person has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong,” 9. The Division Bench has also granted the benefit to the daily wagers, who are appointed after 30.11.1994. It is observed by the Division Bench that despite there being ban on the employment of the daily wagers, the State Government as well as the departments went on appointing the daily wagers after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and hence, it was not open for the authorities to contend that they are not entitled to any benefits as their appointments made after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Division Bench has further held on the principle that a person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum and granted the benefits of allowance to those daily wagers, who are appointed after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 10. The Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 18.10.2016 rendered in Special Civil Application No.11239 of 2016 has reiterated that the daily wagers, who are appointed after the resolution dated 17.10.1988 are also entitled to the benefits arising out of the same. It is observed thus: 5. Having considered the controversy and the contentions, it was at the outset noticed that this Court decided Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 and cognate petitions holding inter alia that benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is required to be extended to even those who came to be appointed after the date of Resolution. The said group of petitions were by the similarly situated employees of the same respondent Board, which came to be decided by common judgment dated 31st January, 2013 and in which it was held by the Court in the concluding paragraph 10, "Considering the totality of the facts and law as discussed above, I find that the grouping of daily wagers sought to be made by the respondent Board on the basis of the cut off date of 30.11.1994, to deny benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is illegal and arbitrary and the same is rejected. It is held that even those daily wagers who are appointed after 30.11.1994 shall also be extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and thus, they will stand at par with the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 and shall also be entitled to the benefits, which are claimed by and are directed to be paid to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992." 5.1 Against the said judgment, Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No.11280 of 2013 (part of the above group), was preferred and the judgment came to be confirmed. It is useful to re- produce the following paragraphs from the Division Bench judgment. "11. As regards daily wagers appointed upto the year 1988, it is the case of the appellants that the benefits accorded to the permanent employees could not be extended to them as they do not hold any post. It is useful to re- produce the following paragraphs from the Division Bench judgment. "11. As regards daily wagers appointed upto the year 1988, it is the case of the appellants that the benefits accorded to the permanent employees could not be extended to them as they do not hold any post. It has come to our notice that similar issues were raised in Special Civil Application Nos.5699 of 1987; 517 of 1988 and 6783 of 1988, decided on 02.05.2000. The petitions were allowed with a direction that all the workmen concerned be treated as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and that they shall be granted all the benefits as such. Being aggrieved with the said order, Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters were filed which were decided on 18.03.2011. Notwithstanding the fact that earlier in Special Civil Application No.26790 of 2007 and cognate matters, the learned Single Judge had vide Order dated 01.07.2009 rejected similar contention of the petitioner and the said Order was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No.2117 of 2010 decided on 11.10.2010; the Division Bench of this Court dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters, reported in (2011) 2 GLR 1290 . The said judgment and order was challenged before the Supreme Court which was rejected vide Order dated 09.11.2012 recorded in Special Leave to Petition (Civil) Nos.35043-35048 of 2012. Thus, the decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and cognate matters, decided on 18.03.2011 has attained finality and all issues are properly ad- dressed. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the grievance raised by the respondents, i.e. original petitioners in Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 is already answered by the Division Bench of this Court. We are in full agreement with the above decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. Independent of this, we are of the considered opinion that these benefits in nature of allowances and concessions are incidental to services and they should be normally granted to such employees when they are treated at par with other regular employees. In view of the above, Letter Patel Appeal No.789 of 2013 fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Now, we may proceed to examine the case of the daily wagers appointed after 30.11.1994. In view of the above, Letter Patel Appeal No.789 of 2013 fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Now, we may proceed to examine the case of the daily wagers appointed after 30.11.1994. It is the contention of the appellants that the Board had taken a policy decision on 30.11.1994 that no new daily wagers be appointed. Still, they were appointed without prior permission or even intimation to the higher authorities, for which penalties are imposed on number of officers for breach of administrative instructions issued on 30.11.1994. The appointment as daily wagers at the grass root level are without following any regular procedure laid down for regular recruitment and therefore they do not have any right of regularization or the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 13. It is an admitted position that the appellant Board adopted the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as a policy vide its circular dated 08.06.1989. The said Resolution, inter-alia, provides that no appointment as daily wager shall be made by any office thereafter. Still, daily wagers continued to be appointed by the Board and they were given benefits flowing from the aforesaid Government Resolution. Thereafter the appellant Board reiterated its policy vide another Circular dated 30.11.1994 that no daily wager shall be appointed but still hundreds of daily wagers came to be appointed after 30.11.1994 and now the Board denies to ex- tend the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to such daily wagers appointed after 30.11.1994 terming their appointment as illegal, which cannot be accepted as it is arbitrary and bad in law. On one hand, the Board issues circular that no daily wagers shall be appointed from 30.11.1994 and still the very Board appoint hundreds of daily wagers in gross violation of their own policy and after passage of more than 15 years terming the action of appointing these daily wagers as illegal cannot be accepted and needs to be rejected. The Board cannot punish others for their own wrongdoings. It is a settled legal proposition that a person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum. If a person has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong, 14. The Board cannot punish others for their own wrongdoings. It is a settled legal proposition that a person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum. If a person has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong, 14. In view of the above discussion, we see no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and we are in complete agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge." 5.2 Against the aforesaid judgment, Special Leave Petition (C) No.29108-29114 of 2014 was preferred, in which the Apex Court on 14th November, 2014 passed the order thus, "Issue notice returnable within six weeks. We direct that while payment of arrears in terms of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed, benefits held admissible in terms of the said judgment may be released in favour of the respondents for the future. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. has entered appearance on be- half of the respondent in SLP (C) No.29108 of 2014. Notice shall now issue to the remaining respondents only." 5.3 Therefore, as per the unequivocal order of the Apex Court, it is in terms directed that though the judgment will remain stayed, the benefits held admissible in terms of the judgment shall be given to the employees for the future. It is therefore clear that the petitioners of the said petitions are allowed prospectively the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. There is no gainsaying that the present group of employees consisting of the petitioners in the captioned petitions, are identically placed.” 11. Thus, as regards the applicability of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the employees, who are appointed after 17.10.1988, i.e., after the Resolution, the issue has been laid quietus by various decisions of this Court. 12. As regards the manner and method of the implementation of the provisions of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Supreme Court in the case of PWD and Forest Employees Union (Supra) has laid down the parameters in the aforesaid judgment. The exceptions are carved out by the Supreme Court, the same are incorporated as under: “10. In order to understand the manner in which judgment had been implemented by the appellant, we may reproduce the chart that was handed over to the Court on January 09, 2019. The exceptions are carved out by the Supreme Court, the same are incorporated as under: “10. In order to understand the manner in which judgment had been implemented by the appellant, we may reproduce the chart that was handed over to the Court on January 09, 2019. It is as under: Number of years worked Benefits granted vide GR dated 17.10.1988 Prevailing Standards of Daily Wages on 17.10.1988 Prevailing Daily Wages on 29.10.2010 17.10.1988 Prevailing Daily Wages on 29.10.2010 Present Pat Scale (Grade Pay + Pay Band + D.A. + H.R.A. + Misc. Expense) 1 Presence of more than 240 days in first year Entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing daily wages Rs.452/- per month Rs. 4456/- per month 2 Service of more than five years and less than ten years Entitled to fixed monthly salary along with DA as per prevailing standard Rs.750/- (D.A. 23%) Fixed Pay of Rs. 4440/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 1300 + D.A. (45%) Ranging from Rs.15,144 – Rs. 18,307 3 Service of more than ten years but less than fifteen years Minimum pay scale at par with skilled workers along with DA Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940 + D.A. (23%) Pay Scale of Rs. 4440- 7440 + Grade Pay of Rs. 1300/- + D.A. (45%) + 3% increment each year. Ranging from Rs. 12,162 – Rs. 18,848 (according to the number of years worked) 4 Service of more than fifteen years Current pay scale of skilled worker with DA and HRA Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940 + D.A. (23%) + additional 1 increment (3% + 3%) Pay Scale of Rs. 4440- 7440 + Grade Pay of Rs. 1300/- + D.A. (45%) + 3% increment each year + additional 1 increment. Rs. 16,241 – Rs. 18,848 (according to the number of years worked) 5 Service of more than 20 years Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940 + D.A. (23%) + annual increment Fixed Pay of Rs. 4440- 7440 + Grade Pay of Rs. 1300/- + D.A. (45%) + 3% increment each year + 2 additional increment. Ranging from Rs. 18637 – 19414/- (according to the number of years worked) 6 Service of more than 25 years Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940 +D.A. (23%) + additional 3 increments (3% + 3% + 3% + 3%) Fixed Pay of Rs. 4440-7440 + Grade Pay of Rs. Ranging from Rs. 18637 – 19414/- (according to the number of years worked) 6 Service of more than 25 years Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940 +D.A. (23%) + additional 3 increments (3% + 3% + 3% + 3%) Fixed Pay of Rs. 4440-7440 + Grade Pay of Rs. 1300/- + D.A. (45%) + 3% increment each year + additional 3 increment. Rs. 20,005 11. The respondents have given their version in tabulated/chart form which according to them is in terms of GR dated October 17, 1988 as directed by this Court in its decision dated July 09, 2013. The chart prepared by the respondents is as follows: Number of years worked Benefits under GR dated 17.10.1988 Prevailing Standard of Wages under GR dated 17.10.1988 Entitlement on 29.10.2010 1 Presence of more than 240 days in year Entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing daily wages + Paid Sundays + Medical Allowance (MA) + National Festival Holidays Rs.452/- per month Rs. 4456/- per month 2 Service of more than five years and less than ten years Entitled to fixed monthly salary along with DA as per prevailing standard Rs.750/- + (D.A. 23%) Fixed Pay of Rs. 4440/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 1300 + D.A. (45%) MA + deduction of General Provident Fund (GPF) 2 voluntary/optional/restricted + 12 casual leaves + holidays on Sundays + National Holidays allowed with pay. MA + deductions of GPF + 2 voluntary/optional + 14 casual leaves + holidays on Sundays + National Holidays allowed with pay. MA + deduction of GPF 2 voluntary/optional + 14 casual leaves + holidays on Sundays + Holidays allowed with pay. 3 Service of more than ten years but less than fifteen years Minimum pay scale at par with skilled workers along with DA Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500 + D.A. (23%) + yearly increments Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 + D.A. (45%) + 3% increment every year MA + deduction of CPF MA + deductions of CPF MA + deduction of GPF 2 voluntary/optional/+ 14 casual leaves + holidays on Sundays + National Holidays allowed with pay 2 voluntary/optional + 14 casual leaves + holiday on Sundays + National Holidays allowed with pay. 2 voluntary/optional + 14 casual leaves + holidays on Sundays + National Holidays allowed with pay. 2 voluntary/optional + 14 casual leaves + holidays on Sundays + National Holidays allowed with pay. 4 Service of more than fifteen years Current pay scale of skilled worker with DA and HRA + local compensatory allowance Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500 + D.A. (23%) + additional 1 increment (3%) + (3%) yearly increment + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance. Pay Band of Rs.5200-20.200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 + D.A. (45%) + additional 1 increment + 3% increment every year + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance Gratuity + Pension + General Provident Fund Gratuity + Pension + General Provident Fund Gratuity + Pension + General Provident Fund 2 voluntary/optional leaves + 14 days Casual Leave + 30 days earned leave + 20 days half-pay leave during the year + holidays on Sunday every week + National Holidays. 2 voluntary/optional leaves + 14 days Casual Leave + 30 days earned leave + 20 days half-pay leave during the year + holidays on Sunday every week + National Holidays. 2 voluntary/optional leaves + 14 days Casual Leave + 30 days earned leave + 20 days half-pay leave during the year + holidays on Sunday every week + National Holidays. 5 Service of more than twenty years Two increment for 20 years service in the concerned pay scale of skilled worker Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500 + D.A. (23%) + additional 2 increment (3%) + (3%) yearly increment + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance. Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 + D.A. (45%) + additional 2 increment + 3% increment every year + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance Other benefits as mentioned in row 4 of column 4. Other benefits as mentioned in row 4 of column 4. 6 Service of more than 25 years Three increment for 25 years service in the concerned pay scale of skilled worker Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1500 + D.A. (23%) + additional 3 increment (3%) + (3%) yearly increment + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance. Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 + D.A. (45%) + additional 3 increment + 3% increment every year + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance Other benefits as mentioned in row 4 of column 4. Other benefits as mentioned in row 4 of column 4. 12. Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 + D.A. (45%) + additional 3 increment + 3% increment every year + local compensatory allowance and house rent allowance Other benefits as mentioned in row 4 of column 4. Other benefits as mentioned in row 4 of column 4. 12. The appellant has, in the written submissions, generally accepted the position given above. However, the appellant has given this acceptance subject to following exceptions: (i) In the category mentioned at Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, every worker is not entitled to the pay scale mentioned by them as per GR dated October 17, 1988 or in the corresponding scale on October 29, 2010 because once they become permanent, they will have to be fitted in the job description in terms of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) as revised from time to time and not by Minimum Wages Act. Any anomaly within the same job description between people who have been regularly appointed and these workers of the respondent union would mean that everybody else will ask for it not only in this department, but other department of Government will have great difficulty in adhering to it. The pay scale mentioned in Serial Nos. 3,4, 5 and 6 cannot be applied across the board. (ii) The old Pension Scheme has been scrapped by the Government and Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme/New Pension Scheme (NPS) has been introduced with effect from April 01, 2005. Therefore, CPF Scheme/NPS has been made applicable under the GR dated September 15, 2014, and the benefits of the same are being granted to the workers of the respondent union. (iii) Similarly, the old General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme has been scrapped by the Government and CPF Scheme has been introduced with effect from April 01, 2005. Therefore, CPF Scheme has been made applicable, and the benefits of the same are being granted to the workers of the respondent union. (iv) The worker is given benefit of past services considering the earlier period on which he worked for more than 240 days in a year. (v) The GR dated October 17, 1988 provides for 14 days of casual leave including 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave. (iv) The worker is given benefit of past services considering the earlier period on which he worked for more than 240 days in a year. (v) The GR dated October 17, 1988 provides for 14 days of casual leave including 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave. However, due to inadvertent translation errors, the judgment passed by this Court directed 14 days of casual leave in addition to 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave. Therefore, the GR dated September 15, 2014 has incorporated the two days of voluntary leave/restricted leave and 12 days of casual leave which is applicable to all Government employees. 13. Having regard to the above, we are confining our discussion to the aforesaid exceptions taken by the appellant. In the first instance, it is pointed out by the appellant that even if the respondents become permanent, they would be entitled to be fitted in the job description in terms of the Rules. What is emphasised is that even after regularisation, their pay scales cannot be more than the pay which is given to the employees who are taken on permanent basis. This appears to be a very sound argument. The only plea was that whatever is given to such employees in other departments, same benefit be extended to the respondents as well. It is difficult to countenance this submission which we find to be legally impermissible. That is hardly any justifiable response to rebut the same. It is to be kept in mind that members of respondent union were all engaged on daily wage basis. No doubt, the appellant Government decided to confer certain benefits upon these daily wage workers depending upon the number of years of service they put in. Judgment dated July 09, 2013 proceeds on that basis. Under certain circumstances, namely, on completion of specified number of years of service on daily wage basis, these daily wage workers are entitled to become permanent. On attaining the status of permanency/regular employees, they become at par with those employees who were appointed on permanent basis from beginning, after undergoing the proper selection procedure on proving their merit. These daily wagers cannot be given the pay scales which are even better than the pay scales given to regularly appointed employees. The Rules are statutory in nature which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309of the Constitution. These daily wagers cannot be given the pay scales which are even better than the pay scales given to regularly appointed employees. The Rules are statutory in nature which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309of the Constitution. On becoming permanent, such daily wagers can, at the most, claim that they be fitted in the job descriptions in terms of the said pay rules and their pay be fixed accordingly. The appellant is ready to do that. We, therefore, accept the plea mentioned in exception (i) above. 14. Insofar as plea at paras (ii) and (iii) is concerned, the appellant intends to deny the benefit of GPF on the ground that w.e.f. April 01, 2005, CPF Scheme/NPS has been introduced. However, on that basis, all such employees cannot be denied the benefit of GPF. The earlier pension scheme continues to annued to the benefit of those who enter the service before April 01, 2005. Therefore, all those daily wagers who become entitled to get the status of regular/permanent employees before April 01, 2005 has to be given the benefit of GPF. To put it otherwise, April 01, 2005 would be treated as cut-off date. All those persons who would be entitled to regularisation/permanent status prior to April 01, 2005 shall be given the benefit of earlier scheme i.e. GPF. However, those who attain this status after April 01, 2005 shall be governed by CPF scheme/NPS. 15. Insofar as exception (iv) mentioned by the appellant is concerned, there appears to be some merit therein. For counting the number of years for giving benefit to the workers in terms of judgment dated July 09, 2013, only those years would be taken into consideration wherein these workers had worked for 240 days or more in a year i.e. in consonance with the GR dated October 17, 1988. Furthermore, there is no direction in the judgment of this Court to the effect that the period of service of 240 days in a year should be only in the initial year and not thereafter. In fact, when the learned senior counsel for the respondents were confronted with the aforesaid position, they conceded to this position. 16. Furthermore, there is no direction in the judgment of this Court to the effect that the period of service of 240 days in a year should be only in the initial year and not thereafter. In fact, when the learned senior counsel for the respondents were confronted with the aforesaid position, they conceded to this position. 16. Insofar as exception (v) noted above is concerned, it is not in dispute that regular employees are entitled to 12 days of casual leave in a year i.e. applicable to all Government employees and the respondents could not dispute this. The respondents workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended to regular Government employees. We accept the plea of the appellant that GR dated October 17, 1988 which provides for 14 days casual leave including 2 days of voluntary/optional leave is the result of inadvertent transaction error. Even otherwise, as pointed out above, the casual leave for daily wagers cannot be more than the regular Government employees. We, therefore, hold that the respondents employees shall be entitled to 12 days of casual leave and 2 days of voluntary leave/restricted leave. 13. Under the circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to confer the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the case of PWD and Forest Employees Union (supra) after examining his case. 14. Necessary order shall be passed within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule made absolute.