ORDER : 1. This group of appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise against the oral order dated 25.2.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 19050 of 2021 and allied matters, by which, the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petitions filed by the petitioners-original workmen directing the appellants herein to confer the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment of the respective petitioners of the year 1990 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. The learned Single Judge has further clarified that while extending the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the five allowances and leave encashment for the present shall not be granted to the petitioners and is made subject to outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending Special Leave to Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the record of the writ petitions are summarized as under: 2.1. The original petitioners were engaged as daily wager by the appellants herein way back in the year 1990 and were paid minimum wages on monthly basis. It is the case of the petitioners that they have worked with the appellant Department continuously, however by order dated 1.12.1997/10.12.1997, their services were illegally terminated without giving any cogent reasons and without following due procedure of law. 2.2. The petitioners workmen being aggrieved by such illegal action of termination, raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Surendranagar, which came to be registered as Reference (LCS) Case Nos. 69 of 2001 and 11 of 2002. The Labour Court after considering the submissions made by the respective parties, passed an award dated 14.09.2006 and 15.09.2006 thereby directing reinstatement of the petitioners on their original post within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of award. 2.3. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of reinstatement approached this Court by filing different writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 5319 of 2007 to 5321 of 2007 with Special Civil Application Nos. 4875 of 2007 to 4888 of 2007. The aforesaid group of petitions were heard together and were rejected by common oral judgment dated 27.7.2010. 2.4. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of reinstatement approached this Court by filing different writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 5319 of 2007 to 5321 of 2007 with Special Civil Application Nos. 4875 of 2007 to 4888 of 2007. The aforesaid group of petitions were heard together and were rejected by common oral judgment dated 27.7.2010. 2.4. The appellant authorities being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid oral judgment dated 27.7.2010 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 437 of 2011 to 453 of 2011. However, pending the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals, the appellant authorities issued order dated 7.4.2016 of reinstating the petitioners-workmen. Ultimately, this Court rejected the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal by common oral judgment dated 20.12.2018. The petitioners thus were actually reinstated in service w.e.f. 7.4.2016. 2.5. It is the case of the petitioners that though they were actually appointed in the year 2016 but in view of the settled legal position, having been reinstated by the Labour Court they were entitled to continuity of service. Thus, the petitioners-workmen claimed that they having put in more than 15 years of continuous service with the appellants-original respondents are entitled to get benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 2.6. The petitioners-workmen approached the Labour Court, Surendranagar directly by filing Recovery Application No. 7 of 2020 thereby praying for realization of difference of arrears amount as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Labour Court, however rejected the aforesaid Recovery Application vide order dated 11.6.2021 by holding that there was no order or award or settlement conferring such benefits. 2.7. The petitioners-workmen approached this Court by filing aforesaid group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for directions to the respondent authorities to grant benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 i.e. pay scale, dearness allowance, GPF, gratuity, earned leave, leave encashment, pension in favour of the petitioners right from the date of award dated 14.09.2006 and 15.09.2006. 2.8. In response to the notice issued by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid group of petitions, the Executive Engineer has filed affidavit in reply opposing the claim put forward by the petitioners-workmen by contending that while counting the services of the petitioners the date of joining cannot be accepted for computing pension in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, more particularly, in particularly, Para-2. The respondent authorities further contended that the State Government has not passed any orders absorbing the daily wagers in the government service. In absence of regularization of their services the word ‘permanency’ mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 2.12.2005 may not be assumed as regularizing their services but at the most can be regularized as permanent daily wagers. 2.9. The learned Single Judge after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. AIR 2020 SC 1776 held that unless continuity of service is explicitly denied, the award has to be construed as one granting continuity. Thus, the learned Single Judge accepted the case of the petitioners-workmen that though award did not specifically grant benefits of continuity of service that itself may not be construed to have explicitly denied. Based on the aforesaid principle, the learned Single Judge by impugned order has directed the respondent authorities to confer benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment of respective petitioners of year 1990. Hence, this Appeals at the instance of the respondent authorities. 3. At the outset, Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate for the respondents-workmen has invited attention of the oral judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1246 of 2022 and has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. He further submitted that this Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the employee has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the respondents workmen were treated to be in continuance service by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2002 (92) FLR 838 and has further directed the appellants employer to give all notional benefits. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss these appeals. 4. Opposing aforesaid submissions, Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for the appellants-employer, was unable to distinguish the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents-employees. However, he invited attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the appellants-employers and submitted that the petitioners have prayed for benefits which cannot be extended to daily wager in absence of any provisions being made by the State Government in the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. However, he invited attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the appellants-employers and submitted that the petitioners have prayed for benefits which cannot be extended to daily wager in absence of any provisions being made by the State Government in the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He further submitted that the petitioners who are daily wagers are not absorbed in the government service and merely because the few benefits have been extended to them based on their length of service they do not derive the status of permanent employees and are therefore, not entitled to the benefits as prayed for. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only for the purpose of benefits envisaged thereunder. The petitioners daily wagers have not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove that they have completed 240 days. So far as claim for pension is concerned, 10 years of regular service is the minimum criteria prescribed under the statutory rules. Thus, he submitted that the initial date of engaging them as a daily wager cannot be considered entitling the petitioners to claim pension, in absence of any order of regularization of their services. He, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. Since the issue involved is in narrow compass and with the consent of the parties, the appeals are taken for final adjudication today. 6. We have carefully perused the order impugned and the record of the captioned petitions. The original petitioners claim to be engaged as daily wager under the respondent company since year 1990 and have continued as daily wager till their services were terminated by order dated 1.12.1997/10.12.1997. Indisputably, the aforesaid order of termination came to be quashed and set aside in the Reference preferred by the petitioners-workmen by award dated 14.09.2006 and 15.09.2006 whereby, the Labour Court, Surendranagar directed the respondent-employer to reinstate the petitioners on their original post within a period of 30 days from the publication of the award. Indisputably, the aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners came to be confirmed by this Court in writ petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal. Ultimately, the petitioners have been reinstated by the respondent authorities by order dated 7.4.2016. Indisputably, the aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners came to be confirmed by this Court in writ petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal. Ultimately, the petitioners have been reinstated by the respondent authorities by order dated 7.4.2016. The petitioners thus have claimed to have rendered more than 15 years of continuance of service with the respondent authorities from the date of award. The aforesaid contention of the petitioners of having worked continuously for more than 15 years is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gurpreet Singh (supra) and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra). We could notice that the said contention of the petitioners-workmen have not been specifically dealt with by the respondent authorities in their affidavit in reply. We are therefore of opinion that in absence of any denial on the part of the respondent authorities of petitioners having put in more than 15 years of continuance service, the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to treat the services of the petitioners as continuance service. As once the petitioners were directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court, continuity of service followed as a matter of law and therefore, in our view the learned Single Judge has committed no error in granting benefit of continuity of service. At this stage, we would like to reproduce the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), which reads as under: “3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed partly.” 7. We would also like to quote the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), which reads as under: “7. Ex-facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed hereinabove. The appellant would be entitled to continuity of service.” 8. In view of the aforesaid principle with regard to the benefit of continuity of service conferred upon the workmen who are being reinstated, in our opinion, the benefits claimed by the petitioners-workmen in the nature of pay scale, GPF, gratuity, earned leave, leave encashment and pensionis bound to follow once they are to be considered at par with permanent employee for all purpose in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. At this stage, we would like to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has examined the issue regarding permanency and regularization and which was further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which came to be confirmed. Even thereafter, various matters seeking similar benefits have been moved before this Court whereby the Courts have time and again reiterated and directed the State Authorities to treat such daily wage employees at par with the permanent employees and to confer the benefits which are otherwise extended to the permanent employees, considering their length of service and Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 9. We find support from the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Vikram Nath (as he then was) and Hon’ble Mr. 9. We find support from the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Vikram Nath (as he then was) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.J. Shastri) in the case of Arjanbhai Virabhai Bambhania vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal (F) No. 35122 of 2020 and allied matters, where the Court had an occasion to examine five different group of matters which also include the issue of entitlement of grant of leave encashment of 300 days, benefit of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006, extension of five benefits to such daily wage employees. The Division Bench after considering the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the decision of this in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) and Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra) formed an opinion that it would be unreasonable and unfair to such daily wagers who have otherwise being directed to be treated at par with permanent employees for all purpose, from denying the benefits extended to permanent employees and thus allowed such appeals by order dated 27.08.2021 preferred by the employees whereas dismissed the appeals preferred by the State Government or the Board. The aforesaid group of appeals along with other similar appeals were admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 01.09.2022, passed in SLP (C) No. 14663 of 2021 and allied matters, in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Mangalbhai Nanbhai Baria and Others, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the State. Thus, in our opinion, the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arjanbhai Virabhai Bambhania (supra) as regards daily wager employees to be treated at par of the permanent employees for all purpose and the entitlement thereof of the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 stands concluded in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. So far as issue raised by the appellant-Corporation with regard to gratuity is concerned, as similar issue has arisen before this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Amrutbhai Haribhai Rathod and Others, which came to be decided by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav) by order dated 16.11.2017 passed in LPA No. 1955 of 2017 and allied matters. The relevant observations of the Court are reproduced as under: “4.0. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav) by order dated 16.11.2017 passed in LPA No. 1955 of 2017 and allied matters. The relevant observations of the Court are reproduced as under: “4.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the only question which calls for the consideration of this Court is whether the continuous of service rendered by concerned employee as a daily wager is required to be counted for the purpose of calculation of amount of gratuity under the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act or not and/or whether the concerned employee is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period during which he worked as a daily wager or not. 4.1. That the concerned employees were not paid the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the period, they worked as a daily wager. They were also not paid the gratuity under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 for the aforesaid period, during which, they worked as a daily wager. Therefore, the concerned employees approached the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period they worked as a daily wager i.e. in the case of Special Civil Application No. 214 of 2016 for the period from 24.6.1983 to 22.6.1997 and in the case of Special Civil Application No. 213 of 2016 for the period between 16.7.1985 to 14.7.1997. The Controlling Authority rejected the claim. The Appellate Authority confirmed the same. The Controlling Authority rejected the claim. The Appellate Authority confirmed the same. That after considering the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also provisions of Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, under which, the concerned employees were not paid the amount of gratuity during the period for which they worked as a daily wager and after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer, AIR 2004 SC 1426 , decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Lashkari Ram, 2008 (1) LLJ 137 and relying upon the other decisions of this Court referred in Para 13.1 to 13.2 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order has held that the concerned employees shall be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act also for the period they worked as a daily wager, the period for which they were not paid the gratuity either under the Payment of Gratuity Act or under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. 5.0. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, under which there is no distinction between the regular employee and daily wager and there is no specific provision that daily wagers are not entitled to payment of gratuity and on the contrary considering the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, more particularly, Section 3 to 5 of the Act, any employee who has worked for not less than 5 years shall be entitled to the amount of gratuity and considering the proviso to Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, daily rated worker and even seasonal workers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in holding that the concerned employees are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period, for which, they worked as daily wager. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is not the case on behalf of the State that for the aforesaid period, during which they worked as daily wagers, the concerned employees were paid the gratuity under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. 5.1. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is not the case on behalf of the State that for the aforesaid period, during which they worked as daily wagers, the concerned employees were paid the gratuity under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. 5.1. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. No interference of this Court is called for.” In light of the aforesaid settled legal position, in our view, the earlier services of the respondent-workmen as daily wager are required to be considered for gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In fact, we have come across GR being No. DKE-2102-893-126-G.2 dated 21.10.2020 issued by Road and Building Department, whereby the State of Gujarat has resolved to extend gratuity in case of Rojamdar and work charge employee taking into consideration the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 11. Now, coming to the issue of entitlement of pension considering the initial date of engagement as daily wager is concerned, the Division Bench of this court in the case of Executive Engineer, Panchayat vs. Samulabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi, (2017) 4 GLR 2952 after considering GR dated 17.10.1988 with reference to the benefits conferred, observed in Para 6 and 7 as under: “6. As is well known, under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Government decided to grant benefits of regularization and permanency to daily rated workers who had completed more than 10 years of actual service prior to such date, of course subject to certain conditions. One of the clauses in the said Government Resolution was that the benefit of regularization would be available to those workmen who had completed more than 10 years of service considering the provisions of section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. They would get benefits of regular pay scale and other allowances, pension, gratuity, regular leaves etc. They would retire on crossing age of 60 years. That the period of regular service shall be pensionable. 7. This Government Resolution led to several doubts. The Government itself therefore came up with a clarificatory circular dated 30.05.1989, in which, several queries which were likely to arise were clarified and answered. They would retire on crossing age of 60 years. That the period of regular service shall be pensionable. 7. This Government Resolution led to several doubts. The Government itself therefore came up with a clarificatory circular dated 30.05.1989, in which, several queries which were likely to arise were clarified and answered. Clause-6 of this circular is crucial for our purpose. The question raised was that an employee who had put in more than 10 years of service as on 01.10.1988, would be granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In that context, the doubt was whether for the purpose of pension, the past service of completed years prior to regularization would be considered or whether the pensionable service would be confined to the service put in by the employee after he is actually regularized. The answer to this query was that those employees who had put in more than 10 years of service as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would get the benefit of pension. For such purpose, those years during which the employee had fulfilled the provisions of section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, such years would qualify for pensionary benefit. Two things immediately emerge from this clarification. First is that the query raised was precisely what is the dispute before us and second is that the clarification of the Government was unambiguous and provided that every year during which the employee even prior to his regularization had put in continuous service by fulfilling the requirement of having worked for not less than 240 days as provided under section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, would count towards qualifying service for pension. In view of the clarification by the government itself, there is no scope for any further debate. The petitioner was correct in contending that having put in more than 10 years of continuous service as a labourer in the past, he had a right to receive pension upon superannuation. This is precisely what the learned Single Judge has directed, further enabling the employer to verify as to in how many years he had put in such service and then to compute his pension.” Thus, it is a clear position of law emerging from the aforesaid decision that entire past services of daily wager, which are continuous are liable to be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits and for the purpose of payment of pension. 12. 12. In the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of the State of Gujarat vs. PWD and Forest Employees’ Union and Others, (2019) 15 SCC 248 after taking into consideration the exceptions raised by the State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Apex court held as under: “13. 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. 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. 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. Insofar as plea at Paras (ii) and (iii) is concerned, the appellant intends to deny the benefit of GPF on the ground that w.e.f. April 01, 2005, CPF Scheme/NPS has been introduced. However, on that basis, all such employees cannot be denied the benefit of GPF. The earlier pension scheme continues to annued to the benefit of those who enter the service before April 01, 2005. Therefore, all those daily wagers who become entitled to get the status of regular/permanent employees before April 01, 2005 has to be given the benefit of GPF. To put it otherwise, April 01, 2005 would be treated as cut-off date. All those persons who would be entitled to regularisation/permanent status prior to April 01, 2005 shall be given the benefit of earlier scheme i.e. GPF. However, those who attain this status after April 01, 2005 shall be governed by CPF Scheme/NPS. 15. Insofar as exception (iv) mentioned by the appellant is concerned, there appears to be some merit therein. For counting the number of years for giving benefit to the workers in terms of judgment dated July 09, 2013, only those years would be taken into consideration wherein these workers had worked for 240 days or more in a year i.e. in consonance with the GR dated October 17, 1988. Furthermore, there is no direction in the judgment of this Court to the effect that the period of service of 240 days in a year should be only in the initial year and not thereafter. In fact, when the learned senior counsel for the respondents were confronted with the aforesaid position, they conceded to this position. 16. Insofar as exception (v) noted above is concerned, it is not in dispute that regular employees are entitled to 12 days of casual leave in a year i.e. applicable to all Government employees and the respondents could not dispute this. The respondents workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended to regular Government employees. The respondents workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended to regular Government employees. We accept the plea of the appellant that GR dated October 17, 1988 which provides for 14 days casual leave including 2 days of voluntary/optional leave is the result of inadvertent transaction error. Even otherwise, as pointed out above, the casual leave for daily wagers cannot be more than the regular Government employees. We, therefore, hold that the respondents employees shall be entitled to 12 days of casual leave and 2 days of voluntary leave/ restricted leave. 17. With the aforesaid clarifications, the benefits payable to the members of the respondents union shall now be worked out and the same be paid to them. Exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified and the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.” 13. In light of the above, we dismiss the present appeals with directions to the appellants to determine and extend benefits of Pay Scale, GPF, Gratuity, Earned Leave, Leave Encashment and Pension by taking their initial date of employment as daily wager for the purpose of counting length of service and by treating them at par with the permanent employees in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is further directed to the appellants to pay such benefits within period of 12 weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. It is further directed that in the event the appellants fail to make such payment in the aforesaid stipulated period then the same shall be paid with 6% interest thereafter till its actual realization.