JUDGMENT : NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. 1. By way of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the present appellant – original respondent No.1 has challenged the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing the said petition held that the concerned workman shall be entitled and eligible to all consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The present appellant is the original respondent No.1 and the present respondent No.1 is the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019. 2 Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as under. 2.1 The present respondent workman preferred Reference (Demand) No.33 of 2019 before the Labour Court, Godhra praying for benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was the case of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that since 16.07.1995 he was working as Peon under the present appellant. Further, he completed more than 14 years service and entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, however, the benefits of the said Government Resolution were not extended to him though the same were extended to other similarly situated employees. 2.2 Before the Labour Court, Godhra written statement was filed and a stand was taken by the appellant that the Government Resolution dated 17.08.1988 is applicable only to the employees of Roads and Building Department and the Government has cancelled the said Government Resolution by subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.03.1995 and the benefits of the said Government Resolution will not be given to any other persons except the persons serving in Roads and Building Department as daily-wagers. It was also contended that appointment of the respondent workman is irregular appointment and purely on adhoc basis, and therefore also, he is not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was also contended that appointment of the respondent workman is irregular appointment and purely on adhoc basis, and therefore also, he is not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 2.3 The Labour Court, Godhra vide its award dated 15.01.2018 held that the respondent workman is entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, but considering the scheme of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which prescribed for periodical fixation of pay scale, directed that the services of the respondent workman be treated as notional till 16.07.2005 by taking into consideration his date of appointment as 16.07.1985 and the respondent workman be paid all the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from 16.07.2005. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the workman. 2.4 Aforesaid award dated 15.01.2018 was challenged by the present appellant by way of filing Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018, whereas the same award was challenged by the respondent workman by filing Special Civil Application No.3047 of 2019 to the extent of not granting arrears from 1995 to 2005 to the workman as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 2.5 The learned Single Judge vide common judgment and order dated 20.06.2019 dismissed Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018 preferred by the present appellant and disposed of Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019 preferred by the workman by holding that the workman shall be entitled and eligible to all consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 2.6 Since the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred only against the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019 wherein the respondent workman challenged the award dated 15.01.1988 only to the extent of denying the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the period from 1995 to 2005, the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties are considered bearing in mind the fact that the petition preferred by the appellant being Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018 though also was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2019, the present appeal is preferred only in respect of Special Civil Application No.3407 of 2019, which was originally preferred by respondent workman only for the limited purpose of denying the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman. 3. We have heard Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. 3. We have heard Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the respondent – workman. 4. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error that the respondent workman was appointed in the organization irregularly without following the prescribed procedure, purely on temporary and adhoc basis, and therefore, the respondent workman is not entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was also contended by Mr. Munshaw that granting benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman would amount to granting the benefit of regularization to a person, who is appointed by way of backdoor entry. It was also contended by Mr. Munshaw that granting such benefit in favour of respondent workman would also result into financial burden on the public exchequer, and therefore also, the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed. 5. As against the above, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the law in respect of extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is well settled by now. There are catena of judgments governing the field, which can be seen and from which it can be clearly seen that the respondent workman cannot be said to be a person not entitled to such benefits and similarly situated persons are already enjoying the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.837 of 2015 while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge has extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 in respect of similarly situated persons. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent workman further submitted that Letters Patent Appeal in respect of Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018 challenging the impugned judgment, came to be rejected at the stage of condonation of delay itself would suggest that the present appeal is preferred only in respect of denial of benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for a period of 1995 to 2005. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent workman further submitted that the grounds canvassed by Mr. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent workman further submitted that the grounds canvassed by Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant in respect of his contentions cannot be said to be the grounds to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated 15.01.2018 of the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (Demand) No.33 of 1999 it is undisputed fact that the respondent workman was serving the present appellant from 16.07.1985 and at no point of time either before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge, the length of service of the respondent workman was questioned. Even the Labour Court has observed that the present appellant admitted before the Labour court that the respondent workman was serving under the present appellant from 16.07.1985. It was also not in dispute that the respondent workman worked for more than 240 days in each year. The only ground to deny the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman was that vide subsequent circular dated 30.03.1995, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were confined only to the daily wagers of Roads and Buildings Department, which according to us is no ground to deny benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman as after the aforesaid circular dated 30.03.1995 much water has been flown in all these years. The law with regard to Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have in catena of decisions reiterated the same. Having noticed that no other material was ever produced before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge which may compel us to take a contrary view, we are not in a position to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the material available on record and after examining the impugned award dated 15.01.2018 has arrived at a just and proper conclusion that the respondent workman is entitled and eligible to consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. We find that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the material available on record and after examining the impugned award dated 15.01.2018 has arrived at a just and proper conclusion that the respondent workman is entitled and eligible to consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In view of the above, the present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Application stands disposed off.