JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Pradip Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for the respective respondents. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. learned advocate Mr.Pradip Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. These petitions are filed on identical issue and therefore the same were heard analogously. 3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing today. For sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.15110 of 2020 is treated as lead case. 4. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction (i) to hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not making payment of full pensionary benefits to the petitioners by counting entire length of service from date of joining till date of retirement as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pension of the petitioners by counting entire length of service; (ii) to hold and declare that petitioners are entitled to all other retiral benefits including Gratuity, benefit of leave encashment and be pleased to further direct the respondents to pay amount of leave encashment of leave standing in the account of the husbands of the petitioners; (iii) to direct the respondents to pay difference of pensionary benefits, gratuity amount and leave encashment with 18% interest from the date when it fell due; (B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately re-fix the pension of the petitioners on the basis of the total length of service put in by them; (C) Any other and further relief of reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.” 5.1. The briefs of the case are that the petitioners were serving as daily wagers in the office of the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer, Panchayat (R&B) Division since 1985 and 1981 respectively. The petitioners have served respondent No.2 uninterruptedly and continuously as provided under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5.2. The petitioners were also given the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and thereafter they were made permanent. 5.3. The petitioners were retired from service with effect from 30.06.2012 and 31.08.2019 after serving for more than 27 years and 38 years respectively. 5.4. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have never abandoned the work, they were always ready and willing to work and it was not the fault of the petitioners that for some occasion the work was not provided by the respondent No.2. 5.5. The petitioners have raised the grievance that only meager amount of pension and gratuity amount is paid to the petitioners without considering the services rendered by the petitioners as daily wagers for the purpose of pension, gratuity and leave encashement. 5.6. The petitioners have therefore preferred this petition to consider the services rendered by the petitioners as daily wager for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioners therefore made representation before the respondent authorities on 10.09.2020 through their Union however, such representation was not considered by the respondent authorities. 5.7. The details with regard to date of joining and date of retirement of each of the petitioners in different petitions are as under: SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15110 of 2020 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Mohanbhai Shankarbhai Patel 21.01.1985 30.06.2012 2. Mohanbhai Nanjibhai Baria 21.08.1981 31.08.2019 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15120 of 2020 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Dabhi Shanabhai Sukabhai 21.01.1976 28.02.2006 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15139 of 2020 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Balvantbhai Nanabhai patel 21.07.1986 31.07.2005 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 500 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Sr. 15139 of 2020 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Balvantbhai Nanabhai patel 21.07.1986 31.07.2005 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 500 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Somabhai Mayjibhai Baria 21.01.1978 31.08.2014 2. Raliyabhai Sevjibhai Rathva 21.06.1987 31.03.2016 3. Namlabhai Dhediyabhai Rathva 21.01.1978 30.09.2012 4. Gulamhusen Dosmahmad Makrani Since deceased through his Legal heir Kubrabibi W/o. Gulamhusen Makrani 01.01.1987 30.06.2018 09.01.2019 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2032 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Pratapbhai Bhurabhai parmar 21.06.1976 30.06.2018 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3319 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Kalyanbhai Salubhai Baria 09.06.1977 31.05.2020 2. Chandubhai Sardarbhai Pagi 11.04.1977 30.06.2020 3. Mangalbhai Fatabhai Pagi 21.09.1987 30.06.2020 4. Shankarbhai Bhurabhai Baria 05.10.1977 30.06.2020 5. Ratnabhai Sardarbhai Bamaniya 11.04.1977 31.03.2020 6. Babubhai Shankarbhai Pateliya Since deceased through his Legal heir Pravinbhai S/o. Babubhai Pateliya 21.09.1987 -- 17.03.2020 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3394 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Dolatbhai Chhatrabhai Parmar 01.03.1975 30.06.2017 2. Desaibhai Bhimabhai Parmar 01.03.1981 31.05.2016 3. Natwarbhai Samantbhai Rathod 21.10.1973 31.05.2015 4. Manubhai Dhanabhai Solanki 21.10.1978 31.08.2015 5. Samantbhai Shankarbhai Parmar 01.03.1981 30.06.2019 6. Shanabhai Becharbhai Rathod 21.07.1973 31.08.2011 7. Late Govindbhai Motibhai Patel Since deceased through his heirs Kesharben Govindbhai Patel 21.09.1980 30.06.2011 17.07.2017 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4206 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Khumansinh Himlabhai Rathva 21.10.1979 31.07.2010 2. Luliyabhai Jirubhai Rathva 21.01.1978 31.07.2011 3. Veersing Chandrabhau Rathva 21.01.1978 30.06.2014 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6740 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Ganpatbhai Badharbhai Baria 21.01.1974 31.05.2015 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7931 of 2019 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. 6740 of 2021 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Ganpatbhai Badharbhai Baria 21.01.1974 31.05.2015 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7931 of 2019 CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONER Sr. No. Petitioner Name Date of joining Date of Retirement Date of Death if any 1. Champaben Galabhai Pagi Since deceased, through Vajabhai Galabhai Pagi 21.06.1986 30.06.2008 01.09.2015 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submitted that in case of similarly situated persons this Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 in Special Civil Application No.14504 of 2016 allowed the petition directing the respondent authorities to fix the pension of the petitioners counting entire service including the service rendered as daily wagers till the date of retirement. It was submitted that this Court also granted the retiral benefits including leave encashment and difference of gratuity as may be payable to the petitioners with 6.5% interest if such amount was not paid within the stipulated time of six weeks from the date of the order. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submitted that similar order was also passed in Special Civil Application No.1574 of 2020. Learned advocate Mr.Dave also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 17.12.2020 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri) in Special Civil Applciation No.19372 of 2018 and other allied matters. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr.Dave referred to the judgment and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Division Bench (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr.Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri) in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No.35122 of 2019 and other allied matters and submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid orders as similar benefits are granted to all other employees. 7. On the other hand learned advocate Mr.Pradip Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai submitted that the respondents could not controvert the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr.Dave and it was submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits which are granted to other similarly situated employees in view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court. 8. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, the prayers made in these petitions are required to be granted in view of the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th August, 2021 rendered in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No.35122 of 2019 and allied matters. The Division Bench has decided group of Appeals relating to the interpretation, implementation and benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which was initially made applicable to the Roads and Buildings Department of the State Government. The Division Bench bifurcated the group of appeals into four categories as under: Group I :- Matters relating to Leave Encashment; Group II:- Matters relating to the employees seeking benefits of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 14.11.2014; Group III:- The appeals filed by the respondent-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board challenging the judgement of the learned Single Judge extending five benefits to the employees covered by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; Group IV:- With regard to the employees who have not been extended the five benefits by the learned Single Judge. 9. So far as these petitions are concerned, the same would be squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgment and Order of the Division Bench in similar facts of the Appeals which are part of the Group Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) wherein, it is held as under: “II. Group of matters claiming benefits of 6th Pay Commission (Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1356 of 2018, 1731 of 2019, 1735 of 2019, 1733 of 2019 to 1734 of 2019, 1736 of 2019, 1765 of 2019 and Letters Patent Appeal (Filing) Nos.35122 of 2019 and 18672 of 2020): 9. The second group of petitions is by the original writ petitioners whereby they have claimed the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 14.11.2014 as has been extended by the learned Single Judge. To this extent, they have prayed for modification of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 10. We first examine the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge based upon the facts, grounds and arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge. 11. The learned Single Judge traced the litigation relating to the grant of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission by referring to a judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2016 in the case of Anand Bhausaheb Pawar Vs. 11. The learned Single Judge traced the litigation relating to the grant of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission by referring to a judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2016 in the case of Anand Bhausaheb Pawar Vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Special Civil Application No.11239 of 2016 and other connected matters wherein benefit of 6th Pay Commission was awarded prospectively i.e. October, 2016. In the said case, the petitioners were similarly situated as the present original petitioners. They had also complained of not being extended the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. This Court had relied upon the judgment dated 16.07.2014 passed in the case of Atul C. Soni Vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992. The judgment in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) was based upon the judgment dated 18-03- 2011 of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1190. 12. The judgment in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) came to be confirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 16.07.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013 and Letters Patent Appeal No.789 of 2013. This was further carried to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.29108-29114 of 2014. The Supreme Court vide order dated 14.11.2014 passed an interim order to the extent that the payment of arrears in terms of the impugned judgment would remain stayed. Further, benefits held admissible in terms of the said judgment may be released in favour of the respondents for the future i.e. from 14.11.2014 onwards. Later on, the Supreme Court vide order dated 14.08.2015 relied upon the statement of Shri L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Board that a decision in principle had been taken to extend the benefits admissible to such employees for the future in terms of the order dated 14.11.2014 within a period of six weeks. Later on, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.10.2017 disposed of the Special Leave Petitions by recording that in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner Board as recorded in the order dated 14.08.2015, pending applications were also disposed of. 20. Later on, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.10.2017 disposed of the Special Leave Petitions by recording that in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner Board as recorded in the order dated 14.08.2015, pending applications were also disposed of. 20. Having considered the submissions, what falls for our consideration is the question that there were already two different classes of employees who were extended the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission from different dates. One category is of the employees appointed prior to 01.10.1988 who have been extended the benefit with effect from 01.01.2006 of the 6th Pay Commission and the other category is of the employees engaged after 30.11.1994 who have been extended the benefit with effect from 14.11.2014. The appellants in the present set of appeals were appointed in between the two dates. They form a third category of employees. The extension of benefit from a particular date would be a policy decision and it was for the employer to decide the same. The present appellants therefore form a different class of having been engaged after 01.10.1988 but before 30.11.1994. They want parity and equal treatment with the employees engaged prior to 01.10.1988. When there is already a second class created which had been extended the benefit from 14.11.2014, the appellants if placed in the said category, it cannot be said that they have been discriminated, as such a decision would be in the realm of a policy decision with which this Court would be loathe to interfere unless it was arbitrary. 21. The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 had been brought in, in order to extend the benefit to the employees who were working on daily wage basis and engaged prior to 01.10.1988. By subsequent Government Resolutions, although benefit was extended to subsequently engaged daily wagers also and ultimately vide Government Resolution dated 30.11.1994, the Government had taken a decision not to make any further appointment on daily wage basis. The very fact that the appellants form a different class, is crystal clear. If they had been extended the benefit with effect from 14.11.2014 of the 6th Pay Commission, no fault can be found with the policy decision of the Sewerage Board or the State Government. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision which is based upon a rationale. The very fact that the appellants form a different class, is crystal clear. If they had been extended the benefit with effect from 14.11.2014 of the 6th Pay Commission, no fault can be found with the policy decision of the Sewerage Board or the State Government. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision which is based upon a rationale. The learned Single Judge therefore cannot be faulted with the relief granted to the appellants of being extended the benefit of the 6th pay Commission with effect from 14.11.2014. Accordingly, this group of appeals is dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Applications stand disposed of. III. Group of matters challenging grant of benefits covered by Government Resolution (Letters Patent Appeal Nos.325 of 2018, 326 of 2018, 413 of 2018, 587 of 2018, 588 of 2018, 289 of 2019, 1238 of 2019, 1737 of 2019, 1764 of 2019, 1766 of 2019 and Letters Patent Appeal (Filing) Nos.36046 of 2019 and 38202 of 2019): 34. We have considered the submissions. The argument advanced by Shri Trivedi today is a day late and a dollar short. May be if such argument had been advanced at an appropriate time, the Court would have examined in that light. But reopening the whole issue today would result into severe discrimination and would be very unjust to the present group of employees who are engaged prior to the employees in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) which was carried upto the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has examined this aspect of the matter in great detail and has referred to the relevant judgments which has resulted into grant of the benefits on the grounds of equality and parity, rather the present employees are holding better case than the case of the employees in case of Atul C. Soni (supra). We may also note here that in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the issue regarding permanency and regularization was considered and the judgment went upto the Supreme Court to be affirmed not once but twice. Paragraph 7 and its sub-paragraphs, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contain detailed discussion on this aspect. The same are reproduced hereunder: “7. Paragraph 7 and its sub-paragraphs, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contain detailed discussion on this aspect. The same are reproduced hereunder: “7. This takes to the relief for extension of benefits of (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession on the basis of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. it is the case of the petitioners that though the said benefits are not expressly mentioned in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, they are part of the permanency benefits which are available under the Resolution and when these benefits are available to homogeneous class of permanent employees, the petitioners should also be granted the same. 7.1 This issue cannot be said to be res integra in view of decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). Those were the petitioners who were dailyrated employees, regularise in service under the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and all benefits as regular government servants were extended to them except the leave encashment, leave travel concession, etc. They had approached this Court with grievance that by not extending the said benefits, the authorities had discriminated them, as though they were accorded permanency benefits, it was minus of the aforesaid benefits of encashment of leave, travelling allowance, etc., even as these benefits were part and parcels of permanency status. 7.1.1 In Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, noted the submissions on behalf of the State authorities thus, “2. Learned AGP reiterated the argument that even as workmen concerned were entitled to, and were in fact granted most of the benefits at par with regular employees of the State, in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, some of the benefits such as encashment of leave, leave travel assistance, travelling alllowance, uniform allowance etc. were denied to them on the basis that they were not full-fledged duly recruited government servants. Learned AGP relied upon subsequent government resolution dated 18.7.1994, whereby it was sought to be clarified that the word 'permanent' in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was meant to convey job security but it was not meant to be understood to make daily rated employees regular employees on the set up and establishment of respective departments. Learned AGP relied upon subsequent government resolution dated 18.7.1994, whereby it was sought to be clarified that the word 'permanent' in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was meant to convey job security but it was not meant to be understood to make daily rated employees regular employees on the set up and establishment of respective departments. It was fairly conceded that entitlement of the employees concerned was wholly dependent upon reading and interpretation of G.R. dated 17.10.1988.” 7.1.2 The Division Bench thereafter considered the object, applicability and scope of Government Circular dated 17th October, 1988 and further noted the clauses in the subsequent Resolution dated 18th July, 1994. It was thereafter observed in paragraph 5 to hold as under. “5. ... … … subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 is expressly superseding the instructions contained in government resolution dated 3.11.1990 but does not supersede original G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Under such circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order. However, no ground or rational basis could be made out for grant of most of the benefits to most of the employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and for denial of the remaining few benefits. Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently re-branded as “daily wager” (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best “permanent daily wage employees”, is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. … … …” 7.2 On behalf of respondent No.1 – State, affidavit-in-reply was filed through the Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department in which it was accepted that Special Leave Petition Nos.29108-29114 of 2014 was disposed of by the Apex Court and the question of granting benefits to the daily-wagers of respondent No.2 Board attained finality and that the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of benefits concerned is within the purview of respondent No.2 – Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. However, respondent No.1 expressed objection to the grant of the prayer in respect of extending the benefit of various allowances such as Transport Allowance, Leave Encashment, Leave Travel Concession, etc., by submitting that the issue with regard to grant of these benefits to daily-wagers is pending in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) Nos.1134 of 2017 and 1271 of 2017. Dealing with the said aspect of pendency of said Letters Patent Appeals, no orders are passed in the said Letters Patent Appeals. 7.3 Not only that and in any view, the employees involved in the said Letters Patent Appeals are the employees of the Departments of the Government whereas the present petitioners are the employees of respondent No.2 – Board. They are identically placed with other similarly situated employees of the same Board who are granted the benefits claimed in the petition. Therefore, since the petitioners belonged to the homogeneous class, they are entitled to the same benefit and same treatment. As far as the entitlement of this class of employees working under the respondent No.2 – Board, the issue can be said to have already been considered and decided. 7.4 There is yet another reason as to why the petitioners herein could not be denied the equal treatment in respect of payment of the allowances of transport allowance, travelling allowance, etc. 7.4 There is yet another reason as to why the petitioners herein could not be denied the equal treatment in respect of payment of the allowances of transport allowance, travelling allowance, etc. Subsequent to the orders of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.29108-29114 of 2014 mentioned above, similarly placed batch of employees were granted the benefits by the respondent – Board by passing Office Order No.59 of 2016 dated 02nd September, 2016 in which, along with granting of benefits of 6th Pay Commission, the Board also accorded benefits of the allowances mentioned hereinabove. A reference is made to this office order in paragraph 5.4 in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra). Therefore, as far as the Board's employees are concerned and all those other similarly situated, these benefits to be extended to them as flowing from the status of permanency which they may acquire by getting benefit of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 8. The issues in the controversy and claims of and relief prayed for by the petitioners operate interactively. The decision in Atul C. Soni (supra) was also based on the Division Bench decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). 8.1 It is to be further noticed that the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19970-19975 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by order dated 09th November, 2012. Thereafter the review applications came to be filed by the State being Nos.35043-35048 of 2012 and the said review applications were also dismissed on 14th May, 2015. Therefore, the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) having attained finality upto the stage of the Apex Court, stands to operate to apply to the present petitioners and all other similarly situated employees for the purpose of their claim to be granted the allowances in question as part of permanency benefits. 9. In the above view, class of the daily-wagers to which the petitioners herein belonged, have to be held entitled to the relief prayed in paragraph 33(C) and the benefits of (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession are required to be extended to them in the same lines as they are extended to the permanent employees since these petitioners are also treated as permanent on the basis of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 9.1 The view taken as above stand solidified by subsequent decisions on the aspect. In Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.1945 of 2014, the petitioner therein was a retired daily-wager who prayed that he was entitled for encashment of privilege leave. The petitioner was appointed as daily-wager and was granted benefit of permanency under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Learned Single Judge relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was entitled to the encashment of privilege leave to the extent of 300 days. This decision in Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan (supra) was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1310 of 2015 decided on 30th October, 2015. 9.2 Referring to the decision of Division Bench in State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), it was observed in the aforementioned judgment dated 30th October, 2015 as under. “6. When the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with by the Apex Court in the afore referred proceedings of SLP and the review is also dismissed, in our view, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in exercise of the power, which may call for interference in the present appeal. Further, when the SLP is also dismissed against the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat (supra) and the review application is also subsequently dismissed, such would be a further more ground not to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.” 9.3 The same question came to be dealt with by another Division Bench of this Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Jorubhai Jijibhai Dabhi being Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 wherein also the original petitioner had claimed benefit of leave encashment upon his retirement. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition, against which Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 was preferred. The Division Bench relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the appeal. 10. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition, against which Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 was preferred. The Division Bench relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the appeal. 10. The aforesaid facts and the principles of law highlighted, render the inaction on part of the respondent authorities (a) in not extending the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners; (b) in not merging 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic salary with effect from 01st April, 2004 and (c) in not granting the benefits of allowances (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession as part of permanency benefits though the benefit of permanency is granted to the petitioners under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, as violative of petitioners' rights under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. This discrimination has to be finally smothered by granting the relief.” 35. The other argument of Shri Trivedi placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Karshanbhai K. Rabari (supra) would also not be available today in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place in between as narrated above in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 36. The other argument of Shri Trivedi regarding difference between permanency and regularization would also not be available insofar as the present appeals are concerned inasmuch as the benefits extended by the learned Single Judge have already been extended by the Sewerage Board and the State of Gujarat for the employees of the Sewerage Board vide subsequent circulars after the judgment in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) attained finality before the Supreme Court. 37. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the judgment in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra) having been upheld upto the Supreme Court and all the issues having been raised and having been discussed and dealt with, it would be unreasonable and unfair to the original petitioners from denying the benefit extended to the other daily wagers covered by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 38. In view of the above, group of appeals filed by the Sewerage Board and the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge extending the five benefits also deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Applications to these appeals stand disposed of. 38. In view of the above, group of appeals filed by the Sewerage Board and the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge extending the five benefits also deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Applications to these appeals stand disposed of. IV. Group of matters not extending five benefits (Letters Patent Appeal (Filing) Nos.5920 of 2019, 41066 of 2019, 41068 of 2019, 41069 of 2019 and 6241 of 2020) 39. The fourth group of appeals is by the employees who have not been extended five benefits by the learned Single Judge despite the same having been claimed as relief in the petitions, however, the leave encashment benefit has been extended. For the reasons recorded above, the five benefits to these appellants not being extended cannot be sustained and as such, the appellants of these appeals would also be entitled to the same benefits as the other similarly situated set of employees regarding the five benefits. Accordingly, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed to the above extent. Consequently, connected Civil Applications are also disposed of. 40. In view of the fact that we have heard all the appeals on merits, the delay condonation applications in all the appeals, whether by the employees, Sewerage Board, Unions or the State are allowed.” 10. Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioners counting the entire service period from the date of their appointment as daily wager till the date of retirement. The petitioners are also entitled to all other retirement benefits including benefits of allowances i.e (i) Transport Allowance, (ii) Travelling Allowance, (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance, (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession and difference of gratuity as may be payable. The entire retirement dues payable to the petitioners towards pension and other retirement benefits to be calculated as above and arrears which is required to be paid to the petitioner and other retirement benefits shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. The entire retirement dues payable to the petitioners towards pension and other retirement benefits to be calculated as above and arrears which is required to be paid to the petitioner and other retirement benefits shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. It is further directed that if the amount to be paid to the petitioner on the basis of calculation as stated herein above is not paid within stipulated period of 12 weeks, the petitioners shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6.00% on such amount, on completion of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents are also directed to continue to pay the pension to the petitioners duly calculated as above. 12. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and accordingly, stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.