JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to immediately consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the submissions made in this petition and be further pleased to direct the respondents to issue immediately appointment/extension orders to the petitioners as the petitioners have been selected and on the basis of merit list, orders of appointment were issued. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from filling up the posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2011. (C)Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the arrears of incentive amount at the rate of Rs.3,750/ per month for last four months, forthwith. (D) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon’‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri appearing for the respondent no. 2 – Panchmahal District Panchayat and learned AGP Mr. Kurven Desai appearing for the respondent no. 1 – State. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:- It is the case of the petitioners who are 24 in number that the petitioners are fulfilling the requisite qualification for being appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker and accordingly, pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioners were appointed as Multi Purpose Health Worker in the Godhra District Panchayat. All the petitioners were appointed in the month of December, 2009 and more particularly, on 04.12.2009 for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) on a fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- per month and as per the appointment order, the petitioners’ appointment was valid till 31.03.2010 or till the regularly selected candidates selected by the District Panchayat are available, whichever is earlier, which would indicate that the appointment of the petitioners was of ad-hoc/contractual nature. The petitioners appointment was subsequently extended and it is the case of the petitioners that their services were orally terminated after 28.02.2011. The petitioners appointment was subsequently extended and it is the case of the petitioners that their services were orally terminated after 28.02.2011. After terminating the petitioners’ services, the respondents issued a fresh advertisement for the purpose of appointment of Multipurpose Health Worker on the same terms and conditions which would indicate that even by way of a fresh advertisement of 2011 also the District Panchayat opted for ad-hoc employees who would work on contractual basis on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker. Meaning thereby, the District Panchayat wanted to replace the ad-hoc employees who were on contractual employment by way of another set of ad-hoc employees by fresh contractual appointment. Therefore, the aforesaid action of the respondent – Panchayat is challenged by way of this petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in case of Gujarat State Karmachari Sankalan Samiti V/s. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 which was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram:-Honourable Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal) vide judgment dated 25.07.2018. He further submitted that the aforesaid decision was carried in appeal by the State of Gujarat by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1327 of 2019 and even the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2019 dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent – State against which the State preferred the Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 5663 of 2020 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.10.2020 though condoned the delay in preferring the Special Leave Petition, Special Leave Petition was dismissed and therefore, the aforesaid judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench in respect of similarly situated persons have become final and as there is no difference between the present petitioners and the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011, the case of the present petitioners is covered by the aforesaid judgment and therefore, this petition is required to be allowed by issuing necessary directions to the respondents. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 5. Learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Hemantkumar Rayjibhai Vasava V/s. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 9062 of 2019 and allied matters dated 27.08.2021 and submitted that there also the learned Single Judge has quashed the termination order which was issued without issuance of show cause notice and even that order is also confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 79 of 2022 vide order dated 25.04.2022. By relying upon the aforesaid two decisions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra prayed that even in this petition also as the facts are more or less similar and no show cause notice is issued to the present petitioners before orally terminating their services, the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential and incidental benefits with back-wages. 6. Learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri appearing for the respondent no. 2 – District Panchayat pointed out that the case of similarly situated persons was earlier also considered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6730 of 2010 and allied matters and vide order dated 16.07.2010, those petitions were dismissed. Learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri for the respondent no. 2 further pointed out that another Special Civil Application No. 8671 of 2010 was also preferred by the similarly situated persons and the same also was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.08.2010. He further submitted that order dated 16.07.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6730 of 2010 and allied matters was carried in appeal by the original petitioners. Vide order dated 27.07.2010, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the learned Single Judge approving the termination of those petitioners was confirmed. He further submitted that the appointment of the petitioners was purely on contractual basis and the appointment order itself indicates that it was for a specific period. Once the specific period was over, the same was not extended and the petitioners were relieved as the petitioners had completed 11 months service as the period of contractual appointment got over and no further order of relieving them was required and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim reinstatement or backwages as there was no oral termination. Once the specific period was over, the same was not extended and the petitioners were relieved as the petitioners had completed 11 months service as the period of contractual appointment got over and no further order of relieving them was required and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim reinstatement or backwages as there was no oral termination. He further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Mishra would not be applicable in the facts of the present case for the reason that the petitioners of those petitions had put in longer number of service as compared to the services rendered by the present petitioners. 7. He further submitted that the present petitioners were appointed in the month of December, 2009 and their services had come to end on 28.02.2011 which would indicate that the petitioners have hardly work for a period of 15 months which would not confer any right in favour of the petitioners and hence, the order of termination was absolutely just, legal and proper and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 8. Learned AGP Mr. Kurven Desai appearing for the respondent – State Government submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioners was of contractual in nature and on fix pay of Rs. 2500/- per month and therefore, petitioners’ services were not required and therefore, the contract was not renewed and non renewal of contract cannot be termed as oral termination and by making the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Except the aforesaid submissions, no other submissions were made by the learned advocates for the parties nor any other judgments or authorities were cited by any of the parties. 10. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record and considered the decisions cited by learned advocates for the parties. 11. On perusal of the record, it emerges that the present petitioners were appointed in the month of December, 2009 and without any interruption, they were continued as Multi Purpose Health Worker till 28.02.2011. Thereafter, from 01.03.2011, their contract was not renewed and thereafter, a fresh advertisement for recruitment of Multi Purpose Health Worker also on contractual/ad-hoc basis was published by the respondent no. Thereafter, from 01.03.2011, their contract was not renewed and thereafter, a fresh advertisement for recruitment of Multi Purpose Health Worker also on contractual/ad-hoc basis was published by the respondent no. 2 – District Panchayat on the very same terms and conditions which would indicate that the services of Multi Purpose Health Worker was very much required by the District Panchayat, however, instead of continuing with the present petitioners, the respondent – Panchayat has chosen to replace the present petitioners by way of another set of ad-hoc employees which is not permitted by law. Therefore, the facts of the present petition is required to be considered from the aforesaid angle as well. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra placed reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench dated 25.07.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 in case of Gujarat State Karmachari Sanakalan Samiti V/s State of Gujarat, while examining the issue, the Coordinate Bench recorded the submissions of the respondents in paragraph no. 4 as under:- “4. In the reply filed by respondents, claim of the petitioners have been disputed mainly on the ground that, the initial appointment of the petitioners was on ad-hoc basis and on fixed salary of Rs.2500/- and as their appointments were temporary and contractual, benefit of regularization in services, cannot be granted. Written statement in this regard is available at page No.105.” 13. In paragraph no. 5 of the aforesaid judgment, the Coordinate Bench while reproducing the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents no. 1 and 4 of that petition noted that in paragraphs no. 6 and 7, it is stated that some of the petitioners working on contractual basis were relieved from services and accordingly, they approached the authority for their reinstatement which would indicate that there also the question of termination or non renewal of contractual appointment was also considered by the Coordinate bench. 14. While, allowing the petition, the Coordinate Bench has observed in paragraphs no. 7 to 12 as under:- “7. It is admitted that initially, petitioners were given contractual appointment for 11 months and thereafter, they have been continued for all these years. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs.2500/-. 7 to 12 as under:- “7. It is admitted that initially, petitioners were given contractual appointment for 11 months and thereafter, they have been continued for all these years. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs.2500/-. The main ground of the respondents in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners and terminating their services is that initial appointment was on contractual basis. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that such stand of the State Government in terminating the services of the petitioners, despite the fact that, petition of similarly situated other petitioners was allowed way back in the year 2011 and 2016. In these proceedings, respondents were party and decision was in the knowledge of the respondents. Case of the petitioners for increasing of remuneration from Rs.2500/- to Rs.9400/- was forwarded by Health and Family Welfare Department for consideration to the Finance Department. Finance Department in place of taking decision in favour of the employees have passed an order vide which the District Panchayats have been directed to terminate the services of the petitioners who have been working for considerable long time. 9. While disposing of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, this Court has held as under. 25. It may be true that in the case of District Rajkot, similarly situated MPHW(M) have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat. However, it is obvious that in the case of Sabarkantha District Panchayat, the services of MPHW (M), who are identically situated to the petitioners, have been regularized, with retrospective effect, by the State Government, itself. The State Government has taken a policy decision in this regard, confined only to the MPHW (M) of Sabarkantha District. Why all similarly situated MPHW (M) in other Districts of the State have not been covered under a uniform policy, is certainly baffling. Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) such as petitioners, who were appointed on adhoc basis but have been denied the fruits of regular appointment only because the regular selection process was not filed until they had crossed the permissible age-limit, from a distinct class of employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. This would amount to sub-classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by confirming the decision only to MPHW (M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts. They, therefore, cannot be accorded discriminatory treatment. The respondent authorities are not only trying to take advantage of the situation but are also trying to put the blame on each other which cannot be permitted, to the detriment of the petitioners. 10. From the aforementioned judgment, it is clear that Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have worked continuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse or the other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners by treating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for which they were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break, they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cut finding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in these proceedings. 11. As a result of aforementioned discussion, termination order dated 6.1.2018 is quashed and set aside and this petition is allowed in the same terms as decided on 10th August, 2016. Petitioners will be regularized in the same manner from the same date as in the aforementioned oral order. Rule is made absolute. 12. In view of order passed in main petition, this civil application listed with the main matter does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 15. The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1327 of 2019. While dismissing the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court specifically observed that learned AGP could not point out any distinction between the petitioners of two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011, whose petition also was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2016 and was considered by the learned Single Judge. Observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no. 2 are stated as under:- “2. Observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no. 2 are stated as under:- “2. This Letters Patent Appeal assails correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the private respondents, relying upon an earlier judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011. The learned Single Judge extended the same benefits to the present writ petitioners as was extended to the writ petitioners of the aforementioned Special Civil Application. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Dave has not been able to show any distinction between the petitioners of the two petitions, nor has been able to place any material before the Court to show Chat the. earlier judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2016 has been set aside, modified or recalled. 16. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and while dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 5663 of 2020 vide order dated 26.10.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay, however, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. 17. Learned advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri for the respondent no. 2 though was repeatedly asked, could not point out any difference between the facts of the present case and the facts of the Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 or Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011. He could not point out any difference between any of the terms of service or any other service conditions or anything which may compel this Court to take a different view than the view that was taken by the Coordinate Bench while deciding Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 and which has been confirmed till the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Shastri relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by similarly situated persons were dismissed and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. He relied upon the order dated 16.07.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 6730 of 2010 and allied matters. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Shastri relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by similarly situated persons were dismissed and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. He relied upon the order dated 16.07.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 6730 of 2010 and allied matters. On perusal of the aforesaid order, this Court is of the view that facts of Special Civil Application No. 6730 of 2010 and allied matters was different for the reason that therein that petition though the petitioners were appointed on the post of Female Multi Purpose Health Worker in the year 1996 but they were after initial appointment on temporary or ad-hoc basis put in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 by the Chief District Health Officer of District Panchayat, Ahmedabad. They were required to pass Hindi and other Examination prescribed by the District Panchayat and they were permitted to appear in the examination pursuant to an advertisement published by the concerned Panchayat Service Selection Commission. Their appointment were subject to the condition that they will have to pass the aforesaid examination and failing which, they were to be removed form the services and that action was challenged by way of this petition and the grievance of the petitioners in those petitions was mainly against appearing in the examinations even after serving as Multi Purpose Health Worker. Therefore, by way of those set of petitions, the petitioners of those petitions have prayed for quashing and setting aside the advertisement dated 06.06.2010 and prayed for regularization. Ultimately that petition was dismissed which would indicate that the facts of those petitions which where dismissed were different as compared to the facts of the present petition. Further learned advocate Mr. Shastri could not point out from the record or even upon taking instructions that the case of the present petitioners is different as compared to the case of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011. In absence of there being any material to indicate that the case of the present petitioners is different as compared to the petitioners of those petitions, the judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 is binding upon this Court, more particularly, when the same is confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, since the case of the present petitioners is similar to that of petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011, necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondents, keeping in mind the prayer made by the petitioners. 20. Since, the petitioners in this petition have prayed for directing the respondent to issue immediately appointment / extension orders to the petitioners and have not prayed for any order of regularization, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioners by keeping in mind the observations made by this Court vide oral judgment dated 25.07.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 and allied matters, more particularly, by bearing in mind that neither learned AGP nor learned advocate Mr. Shastri appearing for the State and District Panchayat respectively could point out any material which may show any difference between the present set of petitioners and the petitioners of those petitions. The State Government is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise and to take a decision in respect of conferring the benefits upon the petitioners including the benefits of reinstatement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 21. As far as the back wages is concerned, it is an admitted position that the petitioners have not worked from 01.03.2011 and therefore, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any back wages, however, the case of the petitioners for continuity of service is directed to be considered notionally while considering the case of the petitioners. 22. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 23. In view of disposal of main petition, Misc. Civil Application also shall stand disposed of. 24. After dictation of this judgment was over, it was pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Shastri on the basis of an affidavit dated 04.07.2022 filed by one Parmar Pankajbhai Ramabhai that out of 24 petitioners who preferred the petition initially only 9 petitioners are unemployed and they have not been able to secure any employment and therefore, out of 24 petitioners only those 9 petitioners are pursuing the matter. Shastri on the basis of an affidavit dated 04.07.2022 filed by one Parmar Pankajbhai Ramabhai that out of 24 petitioners who preferred the petition initially only 9 petitioners are unemployed and they have not been able to secure any employment and therefore, out of 24 petitioners only those 9 petitioners are pursuing the matter. In view of the aforesaid affidavit, the direction issued by this Court shall be complied with only in respect of 9 petitioners mentioned in the affidavit dated 04.07.2022.