Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 178 (GUJ)

Hirabhai Nanabhai Bhoi v. State Of Gujarat

2021-02-26

A.C.RAO

body2021
ORDER : It appears that through inadvertence and mistake, some improper order has been transcribed in this matter on 23.12.2020. Therefore, the said order dated 23.12.2020 is recalled and replaced by present order. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Trivedi, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent State. 3. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.2.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 and also to direct the respondents to confer benefits of GR dated 17.10.1998 to the petitioner and he may be treated as permanent employee after completion of 10 years of service i.e. 2002 and accordingly he may be held entitled to have all the benefits of permanent employee including regular pay-scale from 11.11.2002 and also prayed for direction to the respondents to pay difference of salary which the petitioner would be entitled after 21.8.1997 until the date of award of the Labour Court and also prayed to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the arrears of salary which is payable to the petitioner. 4. The brief facts leading to the present petition, in words of the petitioner, are that, the petitioner came to be appointed as Peon with the office of the respondent No.2 herein. That at present, the petitioner is working as Peon for maintenance City Survey Superintendent, Shahera under respondent No.2. The petitioner came to be appointed on 11.11.1992. It is the case of the petitioner that, without following any procedure of law and absolutely in illegal manner, he came to be terminated from the service with effect from 15.09.1993. The petitioner, therefore, raised industrial dispute. The Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (LCG) No.684 of 1993 has been pleased to held that the petitioner has completed 240 days of service and he has been illegally terminated without following due procedure of law. The Labour Court, accordingly, vide its award dated 21.07.1997 has been pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service without back wages but with continuity of service. 4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents challenged the said award before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.3500 of 1998. The Labour Court, accordingly, vide its award dated 21.07.1997 has been pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service without back wages but with continuity of service. 4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents challenged the said award before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.3500 of 1998. That, in the year 2003, respondents reinstated the petitioner, however, it appears that at his wish and will, respondent No.2 has marked presence of the petitioner though petitioner was never been relieved from the duty. Again, the petitioner was relieved in May, 2005 and after a year, he was again provided work. This Court by order dated 01.07.2005 has been pleased to reject the petition of the respondents. 4.2 That, this Court specifically observed that respondents are required to grant benefit of award from the date of publication of the award and the regular payment is required to be made to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not been paid salary regularly after the award, despite the observations of this Court. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner had preferred at the first instance petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.12448 of 2012 for grant of benefits of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. The petitioner had also preferred Recovery Application No.36 of 2015, in which the petitioner had prayed for grant of salary in view of the award of the Labour Court. The said application for recovery came to be rejected on the ground that there is no pre-existing right in favour of the petitioner. 4.3 It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is required to be placed in fixed pay itself, though notionally, in the year 1997. Thus, as per the award of the Labour Court, petitioner was required to be reinstated with effect from publication of the award i.e. from 21.08.1997 on the fixed pay itself. The petitioner could not have been treated as daily-wager thereafter. Further, the respondents choose to reinstate the petitioner in the year 2003. Thus, in the year 2002 after ten years, the petitioner is deemed to have become permanent as per the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in several cases. The petitioner could not have been treated as daily-wager thereafter. Further, the respondents choose to reinstate the petitioner in the year 2003. Thus, in the year 2002 after ten years, the petitioner is deemed to have become permanent as per the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in several cases. 4.4 The petitioner therefore, filed the petition being Special Civil Application No.12448 of 2012 seeking benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. This Court in Special Civil Application No.12448 of 2012 by order dated 24.09.2019 has been pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. The petition was partly allowed and the respondents had been directed to examine the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits under the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. This Court specifically observed that period as per the award passed by the Labour Court in wake of continuity of service shall not be ignored while calculating his benefits. This Court accordingly directed the respondents to pass necessary orders in terms of observations made in the order dated 24.09.2019 within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order. 4.5 The respondent No.2 has observed in his order that petitioner has worked only for 92 days in the year 1992 and 100 days in the year 1993. Though the award was confirmed by this Court, in contemptuous manner, respondents persisted their illegal stand that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service. Further, without any fault of the petitioner, petitioner was compelled to remain out of service until 2002. The period from 1994 to 2002 though was required to be treated as continuous in view of the award of the Labour Court, the said period has also been ignored on the ground that no work is done by the petitioner. This Court had, therefore, specifically directed to the respondents, while rejecting their petition that, after the publication of the award, the petitioner shall be paid benefit of award and if the regular payment is not made, it will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate application under the Act. In view of the order passed by this Court on 01.07.2005, it is very clear that from the date of appointment of the petitioner i.e. November, 1992, until the date of order i.e. 01.07.2005, petitioner's service is required to be treated as continuous. In view of the order passed by this Court on 01.07.2005, it is very clear that from the date of appointment of the petitioner i.e. November, 1992, until the date of order i.e. 01.07.2005, petitioner's service is required to be treated as continuous. Thus, the petitioner has deemed to have completed service of 10 years in the year 2002 and thus, the petitioner would become entitled to the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 in the year 2002 itself. Thus, in the year 2002, the petitioner was required to be granted the benefits of pay fixation, increments and all other benefits of difference of salary, merger of D.A., travelling allowance, leave, etc. The days shown in the chart are absolutely false. That, after the petitioner was reinstated in service, he was only Peon, worked for 10 hours a day without a single leave. At no point of time the petitioner had applied for leave. The petitioner was doing work of entire office and at present the petitioner is attached with the City Survey Superintendent, Shahera, who is having charge of Kothamba and Lunawada. Both the offices' work was required to be discharged by the petitioner and that too on absolute meager salary below minimum wages. The petitioner had not taken a single day leave. Even the petitioner was not issued any notice until now with regard to absenteeism. The respondents deliberately omitted closed Saturdays and Sundays as also then note down presence at their will and wish. 4.6 In any case, the respondents cannot contend that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days. That, when the petitioner has deemed to have completed 10 years of service and deemed to have become permanent in the year 2002, statements showing less number of days by the petitioner after 2002 become insignificant since the petitioner has deemed to have worked all throughout thereafter as permanent employee. The fact remains that the petitioner was never been issued any notice with regard to absenteeism, and in fact, the petitioner had worked on all the working days of the office. The fact remains that the petitioner was never been issued any notice with regard to absenteeism, and in fact, the petitioner had worked on all the working days of the office. 4.7 That, after the order passed by this Court, in absolute illegal manner and with a view to deprive legal rights of the petitioner to show incorrect figures, it has been shown by the respondents that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days of five years and accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be paid daily wages by order dated 10.02.2020. 4.8 That, the respondents are adopting pick and choose policy. Several daily wagers, who have entered much after in service than the petitioner, have been given benefits of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have conferred benefit of placing daily-wager in pay-scale as per G.R. dated 17.10.1988 in favour of several daily wagers. The petitioner, who was in service right from 1992 and by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, which has become final, is required to be granted continuity of service. Thus, the petitioner is in continuous service right from 1992, till date. Juniors to the petitioner are conferred pay-scale whereas, the petitioner, who is a senior person working since 1992, is not given any benefit under G.R. dated 17.10.1988. That, the said G.R. is applicable to all the Departments of Government and in fact, in case of Forest Department the judgment has been given by the Supreme Court, pursuant to which, the Forest Department has come out with resolution in case of such daily wagers. 4.9 That, the petitioner had worked round the clock for the office and even for two offices he was the single Peon working. Though similarly situated employees are paid salary in pay- scale, petitioner is paid on daily-wage basis. Even every month the petitioner is not paid and he is being paid after 4-5 months. That, the petitioner is at present aged about 59 years and would complete 60 years in November, 2020. Thus, the petitioner has devoted his entire life to the respondent–State and the petitioner is not paid till date even his due salary. The petitioner is victimized. The petitioner is, therefore, required to be paid the difference of salary and all arrears payable under the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, with interest. 5. Mr. Thus, the petitioner has devoted his entire life to the respondent–State and the petitioner is not paid till date even his due salary. The petitioner is victimized. The petitioner is, therefore, required to be paid the difference of salary and all arrears payable under the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, with interest. 5. Mr. Dave, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the order dated 10.2.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 is absolutely illegal, unjust and improper. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has passed the order without appreciating the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has completely ignored the award as well as directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and has passed the impugned order. It is contended that the Labour Court vide award dated 21.7.1997 directed continuity of service, the respondent No.2 sat in appeal over the award of the Labour Court and rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is contended that the petitioner had worked right from 1992 till 15.9.1993 and thereafter earned continuity by the award of the Labour Court from 21.7.1997. Thus, the petitioner has deemed to have worked right from 1992 till 1.7.2005. It is contended that thus the petitioner has become deemed permanent by completing 10 years of service in the year 2002. It is contended that this aspect has been ignored. It is contended that there is absolute contemptuous finding recorded by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the case of the petitioner for benefits under G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is contended that the respondent authorities have gone to the extent of manipulating the records just to avoid grant of benefits under the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner. It is contended that though the petitioner had worked all throughout, presence was marked in such a manner that less number of days would be shown in the presence register and thereby the petitioner deprived the benefit of the said G.R. It is contended that when the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have extended benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 in favour of several similarly situated daily wagers, there is no reason for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to extend the said benefit in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended that many juniors to the petitioner have been given benefit of pay-scale by virtue of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is contended that the Government is bound by its own policy when G.R. dated 17.10.1988 has been made applicable to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, there is no reason for respondents to deprive the said benefits to the petitioner. In light of above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has prayed to allow present petition. 6. Per contra, learned AGP has filed the affidavit-in-reply in response to the petition and contended that the impugned order under challenge dated 10.2.2020 is legal and tenable. It is contended that the said order was passed granting minimum wages from the year 2018-19 after consideration of the fact that he had completed 240 days of continuous service only in that year. It is also contended that the petitioner served as a dailywager with the respondent in the year 1992-93 for a period of 192.5 days. It is also contended that the petitioner was subsequently removed on 15.9.1993 after which he approached the Labour Court, Godhra and by order dated 21.7.1997 the respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with continuity of service, but without back-wages. It is contended that against the said award, the respondents approached this Court by SCA No.3500 of 1998 which was dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2005. It is contended that the petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by SCA No.12448 of 2012 seeking release of benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from original joining date of service. It is contended that this Court allowed the application vide judgment dated 24.9.2019 and was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court and the Labour Court. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed after thorough consideration of the representations of the petitioner as well as the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the Government Resolutions. It is contended that the respondents in the impugned order have considered the fact that the petitioner had joined the office in the year 1992-93 and had served for a period of 192.5 days and had not completed the period of 240 days in the first year of service. It is contended that the respondents in the impugned order have considered the fact that the petitioner had joined the office in the year 1992-93 and had served for a period of 192.5 days and had not completed the period of 240 days in the first year of service. It is contended that neither this Court nor the Labour Court had observed that the petitioner had completed 240 days in service in the first year. It is also contended that the petitioner herein despite being reinstated in service from 2002-03 has attained 240 days of continuous service from 2018-19 and thus the impugned order is just and proper. In light of above contentions, it is submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 7. Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent State authorities. 8. After considering the rival submissions and the reasons assigned by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply denying continuous service of the petitioner and treating the petitioner to be not on duty with the respondents, the Labour Court has accepted and recorded findings in that regard that the petitioner has continuous service could not be countenanced. Now, it is not possible for the respondents to reopen the said aspect under the guise of denying the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner. The respondent authorities are binding to comply the award of the Labour Court with reference to continuity of service as the said award was challenged before this Court, wherein also, they have miserably failed. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD Employees Union & Ors. reported in [ (2013) 12 SCC 417 ], after examining the provisions of the resolution dated 17.10.1988, has issued the following directions: "28. Thus, the principal question that falls to be considered in these appeals is: whether in the facts and circumstances it will be desirable for the Court to direct the appellants to straightaway regularise the services of all the daily-wage workers working for more than five years or the daily-wage workers working for more than five years are entitled for some other relief? 29. As per the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 all the daily-wage workers were not entitled for regularisation or permanency in the services. 29. As per the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 all the daily-wage workers were not entitled for regularisation or permanency in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits: “(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing daily wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. (ii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale on a par with skilled workers along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/She will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iv) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi-skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get the benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired (sic retiral) salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, 30 days' earned leave, 20 days' half-pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily-wage workers and semi-skilled workers who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 30. The daily-wage workers and semi-skilled workers who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29-10-2010 in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat [PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 8647 of 2008, order dated 29-10-2010 (Guj)] and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29-10-2010 [PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 8647 of 2008, order dated 29-10-2010 (Guj)] as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28- 2-2012 [State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union, LPA No. 1754 of 2011 in Misc. Civil Application No. 17 of 2011, decided on 28-2-2012 (Guj)] stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefits w.e.f. 29-10-2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant State and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs. Review filed by the appellant against this judgment was also dismissed on January 29, 2014.” 10. After the aforesaid judgment was passed, there was some dispute regarding the implementation of the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with regard to the pay fixation as well as the pension. There shall be no separate orders as to costs. Review filed by the appellant against this judgment was also dismissed on January 29, 2014.” 10. After the aforesaid judgment was passed, there was some dispute regarding the implementation of the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with regard to the pay fixation as well as the pension. The Supreme Court again in the judgment rendered between the same parties, State of Gujarat v. PWD & Forest Employees Union & Ors. which is reported in [ 2019(3) Scale 642 ], while examining the issue relating to the fixation of pay of daily wagers and the pension, has issued following directions: “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: Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. (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/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. 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 Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. 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. 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 Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of 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. 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. 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 Civil Appeal No. of 2019 & Anr. Page 17 of 18 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. 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.” 11. Resultantly, the petitioner would be entitled to be governed by Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the purpose of benefits flowing therefrom. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including pension if he has retired. The petitioner to get the benefit of continuity of service and the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 accordingly. Resultantly, the petitioner would be entitled to be governed by Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the purpose of benefits flowing therefrom. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including pension if he has retired. The petitioner to get the benefit of continuity of service and the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 accordingly. In other words, the respondents would be obliged to fix the salary/pension of the petitioner on the basis of the total service rendered by the petitioner from 11.11.1992. 12. The respondents shall grant the benefits to the petitioner accordingly and pay the arrears to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure on the part of the respondents to make payment of arrears to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition, that is from 21.3.2020. 13. The petition stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.