ORDER : 1. Draft amendment granted. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State. 2. The issue involved in these petitions is squarely covered by a decision of this court rendered on 20.08.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003 and allied matters. Relevant portion of the decision reads as under: “Having considered the affidavit-in-replies as also written submissions made by the State, it appears that the State is unable to distinguish this case from the facts of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). A bare look at Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) indicates that all the arguments raised by the State in the affidavit-in-reply as well as the written submissions are specifically addressed and answered by the Division Bench. In such a scenario, it would be a sheer waste of time, money and energy for this Court to reinvest the said resources to address the issue identical to the one decided by the Division Bench of this Court. In such a context, this Court in V.A. Parekh Vs. State of Gujarat [2009 (5) GLR 3922] made following observations: (1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and Tribunals in the State. (2) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate Tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceeding of deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. (3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position in utter disregard of that position proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a willful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, this Court in SCA NO.28470 of 2007 & allied matters, has made following observations in paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9: 6. Further, this Court in SCA NO.28470 of 2007 & allied matters, has made following observations in paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9: 6. In the opinion of this Court, once this Court settles the law, unless subsequently unsettled by the Higher Forum, it binds the State and it is the constitutional duty of the State to confer similar benefits to similarly situated persons without asking, in view of the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It appears that ignoring the above-referred constitutional position, each individual department of the State sticks to its individual view rather than abiding by law declared by this Court. Such an approach, in the opinion of this Court, is contrary to public interest. *** It is noticed that this Court is flooded with number of identical matters, as noticed in Paragraph-7. Number of decisions are rendered, reiterating the same issue over and over again. Once the High Court concludes a question of law, it has to be acted upon to the benefit of all similarly situated beneficiaries, irrespective of their filing the petition or other legal proceedings for claiming such benefits. If the judgment of the High Court settling the legal position is not implemented in the aforementioned manner, identical cases will go on multiplying, resulting into flooding of the litigation in already overburdened Courts. Not only that, considerable public time, money and energy gets involved in the avoidable litigation. 9. At times, it is noticed that different departments of the State would take their individual stand, contrary to the stand taken by the other department on the same or similar matter, perhaps because of lack of coordination between the two or more departments. It would be, thus, appropriate if the State evolves a policy to avoid the avoidable litigation as aforesaid. In fact, the State has already declared its litigation policy and it is desirable that under the said policy, the issue discussed in Paragraphs-8 and 9 is addressed by the State to save public time, money and energy in avoidable litigation. Thus, in above view of the matter, this Court is not required to specifically address each and every issue that was raised and answered by the Division Bench in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). Thus, in above view of the matter, this Court is not required to specifically address each and every issue that was raised and answered by the Division Bench in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). In fact, as per the settled legal position in such a scenario, even the issues not raised before the bench of higher strength would not be permissible for the State to be raised in an identical case before a Single Judge. Only relevant aspect would be whether the Division Bench was concerned with the identical case or not and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Single Judge would not go into the detailed arguments as indicated above in absence of the plea that the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) has been overruled by a bench of higher strength or the Supreme Court. Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. [ AIR 2006 SC 1806 ] has been heavily relied upon by the learned AGP with the submission that illegal entries cannot seek as of right the benefits of regularization. True that, in Umadevi (Supra) the Honble Apex Court heavily came down on the action of the constitutional authorities in allowing a back-door entry in public service by a tool of regularization, but an exception in paragraph No.44 was carved out thus: ....We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. In the instant case also petitioners were regularized and only issue herein is as regards consequential benefits of such regularization. Various issues raised in this petition have been addressed by this Court in the context of the identical facts in several decisions mentioned below: Sr.No. Benefits Judgments/ orders Relevant Para 1 Public Holidays (i) CAV Judgment dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Honble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1037 of 2004. (ii) Order dated 08.04.2005 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No.3719 of 2005. The said Special Leave to Appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1037 of 2004. (iii) State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ] Para Nos.28 and 29. Para Nos.5 and 8. The said Special Leave to Appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1037 of 2004. (iii) State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ] Para Nos.28 and 29. Para Nos.5 and 8. 2 Transport Allowance State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ] Para Nos.2, 5 and 8. 3 Leave encashment at the time of retirement and death State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ] Para Nos.2, 5 and 8. 4 Counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of pension (i) Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai Vs. Dy. Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, R & B Deptt & Anr., [ 1998 (2) GLH 1 ]. (ii) Oral order dated 06.08.1998 passed in LPA No.1495 of 1997 in SCA No.7539 of 1997 (Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai Rathod Vs. Dy. Executive Engineer). (iii) Oral order dated 14.12.2005 passed in SCA No.788 of 2005 (Shyam B Salunkhe Vs. Dy. Executive Engineer). (iv) MANU/GJ/0072/2007 (Sultan Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat & Ors) (v) Oral judgment dated 30/01/1996 passed in SCA No.3607 of 1982. (vi) State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ] Para Nos.9 and 11. Page Nos.108 to 110. Para Nos.4 and 5. Para No.7. Para Nos.9 and 10. Para Nos.5 and 8. 5 Medical Allowance State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ]. Para Nos.5 and 8. 6 Group Insurance State of Gujarat & Anr., Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr., [ 2011 (2) GLR 1290 ]. Para Nos.5 and 8. Under the circumstances, respondents are required to be directed to follow Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) in its letter and spirit and confer upon the petitioner all the benefits as indicated in the said judgment as also the judgments in the above table within six months of receipt of the writ of this Court. Accordingly, directed. These petitions accordingly succeed. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions. No costs.” 3. This order of the co-ordinate bench was confirmed in appeal by way of decision dated 28.12.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1567 of 2018. 4. Accordingly, directed. These petitions accordingly succeed. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions. No costs.” 3. This order of the co-ordinate bench was confirmed in appeal by way of decision dated 28.12.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1567 of 2018. 4. In view of the above, present petitions are allowed in terms of the order dated 20.08.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003 and allied matters. The petitioners shall be entitled to the six ancillary benefits as prayed for and the same shall be paid to them within ten weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this court. Rule is made absolute accordingly.