JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Niyati Vaishnav for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Hemant Munshaw for the respondent No. 1 Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar as well as its authorities-the respondent Nos. 2 and, 3 at length. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 with consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service by the petitioner. It is next prayed to direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioner as per the 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission recommendations from the respective dates when the Pay Commission recommendations were given effect to. The petitioners have prayed to pay arrears arising out of the reliefs as above. 3. The petitioner worked as daily wager under the respondent Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board from 31.12.1991. The petitioner was holding the minimum educational qualification of S.S.C. pass right from his appointment. On 30.6.1992, the services of the petitioner was orally terminated, pursuant to which he had an occasion to approach the Labour Court, Amreli, by way of Reference Case No. (LCA) 309 of 1998 (old No. 790 of 1993) wherein the Labour Court passed judgment and award to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and with 50% back wages. The challenge to the said judgment and award at the instance of the authorities did not succeed as Special Civil Application No. 81 of 2000 was rejected by this court 12.7.2001. The petitioner was thereafter came to be reinstated. 3.1. The petitioner has based his prayers on the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the state government and the attendant Resolutions whereby the beneficial provisions of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were revised or modified extending the benefits to the beneficiaries. 3.2. While the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the state government contemplated grant of various service benefits to the daily rated employees upon completion of 5, 10 or 15 years of services, the respondent Board has adopted the said parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and has issued circular dated 8.6.1989 in that regard granting similar benefits to its employees. In light of the said circular and the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 the petitioner was granted fixed pay of Rs. 750/- at the end of five years of service. 3.3. In light of the said circular and the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 the petitioner was granted fixed pay of Rs. 750/- at the end of five years of service. 3.3. It appears that a concomitant Resolution dated 1.5.1991 came to be issued by the state government in continuation of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Thereby, it was provided that the daily wagers who had passed the S.S.C. Examination and have completed 7 years of service, should be placed in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. This Resolution was later revised by subsequent resolution dated 15.2.1992 providing that the SSC passed daily wagers would be entitled to pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (revised as 3050-4590) upon their completion of 7 years of service and would be treated as regular upon completion of 10 years of service. 3.4. It was pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent Board passed order dated 29.5.2001 granting pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 revised to Rs. 3050-4590 to the S.S.C. passed daily wages upon their completion of 7 years of service, by producing copy of such order on record of the petition. 3.5. It was further pointed out that since the Board has failed to uniformly apply and grant pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to the similarly situated, some of such similarly situated employees filed Special Civil Application No. 18518 of 2003 and other petitions before this court, in which the court passed the order to direct the Board to give such benefits. It was further stated that on 13.8.2003 the petitioner was granted benefit of completion of five years of service with effect from 31.12.1996 and further order was passed on 3.8.2004 recording that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service. 3.6. The main grievance of the petitioner thus is that he is denied the benefits of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 revised to Rs. 3050-1500 in terms of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 read with instructions dated 15.2.1992 though he is SSC pass and has completed requisite number of years in service. 4. The petition was contested by respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer, in which it was admitted that the Board had passed circular dated 8.6.1989 to adopt the parent resolution dated 17.10.1988 and that the benefit flowing therefrom were being extended to the eligible employees of the Board. It was, however, contended that the pay scale of Rs. 4. The petition was contested by respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer, in which it was admitted that the Board had passed circular dated 8.6.1989 to adopt the parent resolution dated 17.10.1988 and that the benefit flowing therefrom were being extended to the eligible employees of the Board. It was, however, contended that the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 claimed by the petitioner could not be extended to him since it was not the part of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 4.1. Conspicuously, in para-6 of the affidavit-in-reply it was stated thus, "The respondent No. 3 submits that the issue in question with regard to grant of such benefits to SSC pass daily wagers is yet not finalized at the end of State Government. It is submitted that a proposal is addressed to the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply and Kalpasar Department of the Government of Gujarat on 9.1.2014 and subsequently a further correspondence is entered into between the Government of Gujarat and respondent Board but appropriate decision is yet to be taken." 5. There is no gainsaying, rather it is an admitted position, that respondent Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, has adopted Resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the state government. It has extended all the benefits contemplated under the said resolution to its own employees on fulfillment of conditions mentioned therein. This resolution represents a beneficial scheme whereby the state government has contemplated grant of service benefits to the daily rated workman on complement of requisite number of services. This parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 witnessed modification, revision and clarification by policy decision, which has a live nexus with the parent policy resolution. While the policy emanates from the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, it received refinement and necessary modification time to time. Once the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is accepted by the Board and the parent policy is adopted, the incidental resolutions and attendant resolutions would have to automatically apply. It would be unfair, unreasonable and unjust if the Board disowns the subsequent clarifications and modifications effected in the main policy resolution which was adopted by it, and to refuse to apply the same. 5.1. Even otherwise, on the pure ground of breach of Article 14 of the Constitution, the petitioner would be entitled to seek relief. It would be unfair, unreasonable and unjust if the Board disowns the subsequent clarifications and modifications effected in the main policy resolution which was adopted by it, and to refuse to apply the same. 5.1. Even otherwise, on the pure ground of breach of Article 14 of the Constitution, the petitioner would be entitled to seek relief. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has given details of as many as 9 similarly situated employees (Annexure R/1 to the rejoinder) who were given pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 upon their passing the SSC examination. It was stated by the petitioner uncontrovertedly that after adoption of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the respondent Board adopted subsequent Resolution dated 1.5.1991 to give to several employees the benefits as per the said resolution. When resolution dated 1.5.1991 read with resolution dated 15.2.1992 are seen, it could be discerned that they were with reference to and in continuation of the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988. They were part and parcels of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 5.2. While learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the employees named in the Annexure R-1 to the rejoinder have been receiving the said pay scales of Rs. 950-1500 even today, learned advocate for the respondent was at his receiving end. He could not dispute the said factum. A faint contention was sought to be raised that it was a wrongly granted benefit. 5.3. In the facts of the case, the respondents indeed could not take a stand that Article 14 would not apply. On the contrary and as noted above in para-6 of the affidavit, it is stated by the respondent Board explicitly that the proposal is made and the correspondence is live between the Government of Gujarat and Board. When similarly situated employees have been extended the benefits and the petitioner who is also SSC pass and has completed 10 years of service, no sustainable ground could be said to be existing to deny the petitioner the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 revised from time to time. 6. As a result of the above discussion, the petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to grant the benefits of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service and revise the pay scale of the petitioner as per 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission scales on such basis. 6. As a result of the above discussion, the petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to grant the benefits of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service and revise the pay scale of the petitioner as per 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission scales on such basis. The arrears payable by virtue of present order, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.