ORDER : [A.J. DESAI, J.] 1. The challenge in all these appeals is against various orders passed by learned Single Judge in different captioned writ petitions by which learned Single Judge relying upon various decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. PWD and Forest Employees Union & Others reported in 2013 (12) SCC 417 (known as PWD Union 1 case) as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Public Works Department and Forest Employees Union and others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 248 (known as PWD Union 2 case), has directed the appellants herein to grant benefits like Public Holidays, Transport Allowances, Travelling Allowances, LTC and Leave Encashment, Arrears of pay as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 and counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of computing pension, gratuity and pensionary/retirement benefits. 2. The respondents - employees in each captioned writ petitions have sought similar benefits relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PWD Union 1 case (Supra) as well as PWD Union 2 case (Supra). 3. Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader assisted by Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has mainly contended that in none of the decisions on which reliance has been placed by learned Single Judge, especially in the decisions of PWD Union 1 case and PWD Union 2 case, the benefits which were granted to the respondent - employees by learned Single Judge have been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In addition to the same, she would submit that several orders passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in several writ petitions and confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal were challenged by State of Gujarat by filing 32 Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By taking us through the order dated 1.9.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14663 of 2021 and other allied petitions, she would submit that while dismissing the said Special Leave Petitions, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that granting leave encashments would not be treated as granting the respondents a status of permanent or regular employees. 4. 4. In support of her submissions, she has taken us through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PWD Union 2 Case (supra), particularly paragraphs 11 to 14. She would submit that in the said paragraphs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held that the employees who are beneficiaries under the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would be entitled for the benefits which have been directed to be paid by learned Single Judge. She would further submit that though several demands were made by the Union which is referred in paragraph 12, no specific relief has been granted in favour of the PWD Employees Union. She would further submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the pay scale, though it could not have observed that the employees should be treated at par with regular employees. 5. As far as the grant of higher pay scale is concerned, learned Government Pleader would submit that the State has challenged the same in another group of appeals and hence, the same is not raised here. She, therefore, would submit that the appeals be admitted and the impugned order may be stayed. 6. Mr. H.S. Munshaw and Mr. Pradip J. Patel, learned advocates appearing for appellants in some of the appeals have adopted the arguments canvassed by learned Government Pleader and they have submitted that the appeals filed by them be admitted and the impugned order may be stayed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Shikha D. Panchal, learned advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants have challenged various orders passed by learned Single Judge and upheld in Letters Patent Appeal by Division Bench of this Court by filing 32 Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has provided a bunch of all the orders passed in various writ petitions as well as in Letters Patent Appeals against which Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also provided copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the said Special Leave Petitions which has been relied upon by learned Government Pleader. He has provided a bunch of all the orders passed in various writ petitions as well as in Letters Patent Appeals against which Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also provided copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the said Special Leave Petitions which has been relied upon by learned Government Pleader. He would further submit that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PWD Union 2 case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as well as Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014, 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. Therefore, all the benefits granted to permanent employees is required to be granted to the respondents - employees, which have been rightly granted by learned Single Judge. 8. He would further submit that in the 32 Special Leave Petitions filed by State, the State authorities have challenged various benefits granted in favour of employees, like (i) leave encashment, (ii) transport allowance, travelling allowance, LTC, leave encashment and other ancillary benefits (iii) pensionary benefits, all other retiral benefits including benefit of leave encashment, (iv) pay scale and other benefits as per 6th Pay Commission, to grant all benefits that are granted to regular employees like Transport Allowance, Travelling Allowance, LTC and other ancillary benefits, and (v) counting service from the date of joining for the purposes of granting retirement benefits and leave encashment. He would further submit that in Letters Patent Appeal No.884 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2021 has granted benefits like transport allowance, travelling allowance, transfer travelling allowance, leave encashment and leave travel concession. Against the said decision, the State has preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4009 - 4018 of 2022 which have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.9.2022, which has been relied upon by learned Government Pleader. 9. He would further submit that initially, these 32 Special Leave Petitions were notified before different Benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In some cases, order granting leave encashment was stayed, whereas in some cases, entire order granting benefits was stayed. 9. He would further submit that initially, these 32 Special Leave Petitions were notified before different Benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In some cases, order granting leave encashment was stayed, whereas in some cases, entire order granting benefits was stayed. However, after final hearing of the said Special Leave Petitions, the same came to be dismissed by common order dated 1.9.2022. He would further submit that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the said appeals has considered only the question of leave encashment and the same has been granted. He would further submit that the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 1.9.2022 is with regard to those employees in whose favour only leave encashment has been granted and the Hon'ble Apex Court has not disturbed the observations made by Division Bench of this Court by which several benefits have been granted in favour of the employees. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also not modified or clarified the ratio laid down in the case of PWD Union 2 Case (Supra). With regard to the submission made by learned Government Pleader that the observations made in paragraph 13 of the decision of PWD Union 2 Case, he would submit that the same is with regard to granting only pay scale and to treat those daily wagers only for pay scale cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and 15.9.2014 are to be treated at par with regular employees. He, therefore, would submit that the appeals may be dismissed. 10. He would further submit that though several orders passed by various Courts and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, the State Authorities as well as Government functionaries are filing appeals by taking recourse to one of two observations made in some orders which have been recently passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, would submit that appropriate order may be passed. 11. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. He, therefore, would submit that appropriate order may be passed. 11. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The challenge in these group of appeals is against grant of benefits like Public Holidays, Transport Allowances, Travelling Allowances, LTC and Leave Encashment, Arrears of pay as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 and counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of computing pension, gratuity and pensionary/retirement benefits. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions of the employees has relied upon several decisions of Division Bench of this Court which orders have been questioned by State by filing 32 Special Leave Petitions. It is an undisputed fact that initially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of the Special Leave Petitions while issuing notice, stayed the direction to grant benefit of leave encashment and in some Special Leave Petitions which were listed before another Bench, stayed the whole impugned orders. However, ultimately, vide common order dated 1.9.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed all the 32 Special Leave Petitions. Since heavy reliance has been placed by learned Government Pleader upon the said order dated 1.9.2022, the Court would like to reproduce the same which reads as under :- "Delay condoned. In view of the Resolution No. W.C.E.-1588-(5)/(2)/G.2 dated 17-10-1988, the respondent employees are entitled to retirement benefits, gratuity, provident fund etc. In addition, they are entitled to two yearly optional leaves in total of 14 casual leaves, 30 days of earned leave and 20 days half pay leaves, as well as holiday on Sunday and during the national holidays/occasions. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the directions given by the High Court to pay leave encashments on the retirement of the employees, as the same would pertain to encashment of the unused earned leaves. The payment is also in the nature of retirement benefits. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid directions would not be treated as granting the respondents a status of permanent or regular employees. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of." 12. The payment is also in the nature of retirement benefits. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid directions would not be treated as granting the respondents a status of permanent or regular employees. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of." 12. From the above order, the first paragraph itself suggests that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding all the appeals together was considering the question of only leave encashment and not other benefits which have been granted by different Division Benches which were under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the second paragraph of the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that no interference is required with the direction given by the High Court to pay leave encashment on the retirement of the employees and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not disturbed the direction with regard to grant of other benefits granted by different Division Benches of this Court. As far as third paragraph is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals has dealt with question of only leave encashment and, therefore, the said observations have been made. 13. Apart from this aspect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PWD Union 2 case (Supra) has held in paragraph 14 as under :- "14. 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 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. 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. 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 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. As per the highlighted portion of the above referred paragraph, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that all the daily wage employees should be treated at par with those employees who were appointed on permanent basis from beginning, after undergoing the proper selection procedure on proving their merit. It is needless to state that all the employees who were appointed on permanent basis from the beginning are getting all the benefits like Public Holidays, Transport Allowances, Travelling Allowances, LTC and Leave Encashment, Arrears of pay as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 and counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of computing pension, gratuity and pensionary/retirement benefits. 15. 15. Insofar as the prayer seeking for grant of the five benefits i.e. (1) Transport Allowance; (2) Travelling Allowance; (3) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (4) Leave Encashment and (5) Leave Travel Concession, we find further support from the decision dated 21.12.2017 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal arising from the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 18120 of 2016, whereby it has been held had that the petitioners therein were entitled to such benefits as stated hereinabove. The facts as emerges from the orders, were that the State of Gujarat and the Gujarat Water and Sewerage Board had challenged the said decision by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018 and allied matters whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Vikram Nath, CJ as then he was and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J) vide common judgment dated 27.08.2021 in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 35122 of 2019, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench had also decided the Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018 observed with regard to the issue of extending the five benefits to the petitioners therein. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench are quoted herein below for better appreciation :- "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. 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. 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 the by not extending the said benefits, the authorities not 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 allowance, uniform allowance etc. were denied to them on the basis that they were not full-fledged duly recruited government servants. 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. 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. dated17.10.1988 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, affidavitin- 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 dailywagers 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 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. 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. 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 herein above. 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. 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 dailywager 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. 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. " XXX XXX XXX 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." 16. 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." 16. Therefore, in view of the above and considering the settled position of law, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions. Hence, we dismiss these appeals. However, we direct the State Authorities to release all the benefits in favour of the employees like Public Holidays, Transport Allowances, Travelling Allowances, LTC and Leave Encashment, Arrears of pay as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 and counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of computing pension, gratuity and pensionary/retirement benefits, except higher pay scale, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which each employee would be entitled for interest @ 6% from the date of filing of respective writ petitions by each employee till the amount is actually paid. In view of dismissal of appeals, connected applications also stand dismissed.