JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the concerned respondent No. 2-Nigam. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to extend the benefits of the GR dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 16.4.1995 to 25.7.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and revised pay scale corresponding thereto from 26.7.2003 to 9.1.2017 and from 10.1.2017 till date with 100% difference of salary. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 16.4.1990 as Daily Wager Driver by the Superintending Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Saurashtra Branch Canal Circle-1, Surendranagar. On his services being terminated on 11.12.1990, a dispute was raised in reference (LCS) No. 57/1991. By an award dated 30.7.1993, the labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of back wages. On a challenge to the award by the respondent No. 2-Nigam, by a judgment and order dated 26.8.1997, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner was reinstated on 21.8.1997. The petitioner had given legal notice on 21.9.1998 sought for the benefits of Resolution of 17.10.1988. Accordingly, a proposal was sent by the respondent for extending the benefits of Resolution. The petitioner had raised an industrial dispute claiming regularization before the labour Court, Surendranagar. Pending the dispute, the petitioner's services were again terminated by an order dated 25.7.2003, for which, the petitioner filed a complaint No. 2/2003. The reference/complaint was rejected against which the petitioner filed SCA No. 17955/2014. The labour Court, by an award dated 29.9.2011 in complaint No. 2/2003 directed the Nigam to reinstate the petitioner with 50% back wages. In the main award namely; Reference (LCD) No. 6/2003, the petitioner's claim for regularization was refused. Aggrieved by these orders, the petition filed SCA No. 17995/2014 and a Nigam filed SCA No. 20/2013. Both these petitions were heard together and by common order dated 9.1.2017 with regard to regularization directed the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities, as far as the Nigam's petition challenging reinstatement, the petition was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by these orders, the petition filed SCA No. 17995/2014 and a Nigam filed SCA No. 20/2013. Both these petitions were heard together and by common order dated 9.1.2017 with regard to regularization directed the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities, as far as the Nigam's petition challenging reinstatement, the petition was dismissed. 5. It is apparent from the proposal made by the Corporation-Nigam that for the first time, the petitioner was appointed on 16.4.1990 and a representation being made for granting the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, his request has been rejected by a communication dated 1.11.2018 on the ground that his appointment is post of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 6. Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned counsel for the Nigam would draw the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by a Nigam and submit that while counting from the date of joining for pension, because of the GR dated 17.10.1988, particularly, para 2 thereof Daily Wager will get a fix pay after five years service under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the running scale after ten years of service. The department has no power to go beyond the Government Resolution. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the fact that has admittedly brought out on record that similarly situated employees who were appointed post 1990 i.e. in the year 1991 have been granted the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of his appointment on 16.4.1990 even if it is post 17.10.1988. 8. This Court in SCA No. 7531/2018 in an oral order dated 20.8.2019 considering the decision of Kutch District Panchayat v. Mangalbhai K. Rabari decided as per judgment dated 8.10.2014, in turn confirmed in LPA No. 1381 of 2015 decided on 4.1.2016 has held as under. Relevant paragraph Nos. 5, 5.1, 6 and 6.1 of SCA No. 7531 of 2018 dated 20.8.2019 are reproduced hereunder: "5. In Kutch District Panchayat v. Mangalbhai K. Rabari being Special Civil Application No. 15670 of 2005 decided as per judgment dated 08th October, 2014, in turn confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1381 of 2015 decided on 04th January, 2016, it was observed and held in judgment dated 08th October, 2014 as under: "7. In Kutch District Panchayat v. Mangalbhai K. Rabari being Special Civil Application No. 15670 of 2005 decided as per judgment dated 08th October, 2014, in turn confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1381 of 2015 decided on 04th January, 2016, it was observed and held in judgment dated 08th October, 2014 as under: "7. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent workmen contended that the decision of the Supreme Court as cited herein above in case of State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union & Ors. (supra) would have straightway applicability to the present case. The so called inapplicability of GR has been answered squarely by the Court as there are subsequent Government Resolutions clarifying such things. Besides this, in the affidavit in reply at page-47 Courts attention was drawn to indicate that G.R. Dated 17/10/1988 is clarified and given effect to all those who are subsequently appointed also and that has been accepted as policy governing such employment thereafter. 8. Shri Pathak pointed out that learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in contending that all were employed after GR dated 17/10/1988. In fact four were employed before that. Shri Munshaw at this stage submitted that he never meant all employees were employed after the GR and statement annexed to the employees list would clarify the situation. 11. The Court is of the considered view that the GR dated 17/10/1988 was no doubt containing reference to the future employment but the subsequent course of action and developments as it indicate that the Government continued employing daily wagers, temporary hands irrespective of those conditions which gave rise to a situation where litigations came up and hence as Shri Pathak has pointed out clarificatory GR came to be issued and over all facts & circumstances of the case indicate that the benefits of GR dated 17/10/1988 were to be extended to all, else it would have meant to Government employing unfair labour practice which would have been highly depreciable. 12. 12. The Court is also of the view that the decision cited at the bar in case of State of Gujarat and Others v. PWD Employees Union and Others will have applicability to the facts & circumstances of the case and counsel of the petitioners submission qua some of the workmen were employed after GR dated 17/10/1988 would be of no avail as the judgment itself has answered that contention squarely." 5.1 In PWD Employees Union through President v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 4662 of 2015, this Court relied on the aforesaid decision in Kutch District Panchayat (supra). PWD Employees Union (supra) had a similar set of facts wherein also the petitioners were denied the benefits of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 on the ground that their appointments were subsequent to the date of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 6. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been denied the benefits under the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. He stands covered under the said Resolution for the purpose of benefits flowing therefrom and the petitioner is entitled to the same. It was not the ground to be valid in law to deny the petitioner the benefit of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and incidental benefits that the petitioner was appointed subsequent to the date of Resolution, that is after 17th October, 1988. 6.1 Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Maintenance Department, Rajkot, is set aside. The respondents are directed to accord benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the conditions of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Necessary benefits shall be paid together with the arrears to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of copy of the present order. Failure on the part of the respondents to pay the due amount and the benefits to the petitioner would entail interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fling of the petition, that is from 07.05.2018 till actual payment." 9. In a subsequent decision of 31.1.2020 passed in SCA No. 2811 of 2020, the Court has held as under: Relevant paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 are reproduced hereunder: "3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working with the respondent since 1991. His services were terminated with effect from 01.08.1999. In a subsequent decision of 31.1.2020 passed in SCA No. 2811 of 2020, the Court has held as under: Relevant paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 are reproduced hereunder: "3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working with the respondent since 1991. His services were terminated with effect from 01.08.1999. Aggrieved by his order of termination, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed that the petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and 40% back-wages. The award of the Labour Court was passed on 05.05.2008. The challenge to the Labour Court's award failed as the petition was dismissed confirming the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and disturbing the award only qua back-wages. The petitioner was reinstated on 01.01.2013. The impugned orders rejecting the request of the petitioner for the benefit of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 is only on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was post 1988 i.e. in the year 1992. In case of a similarly situated petitioner of the same department, this Court by order dated 15.07.2019 passed in case of Chandulal Mohanbhai v. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 12120 of 2019 considered the question of granting the benefits of the resolution of 17.10.1988 in context of the stand of the department denying the same to such petitioner on the ground that he was appointed post 1988. The Court held as under: "4.1 Thereafter followed the impugned order dated 11.10.2017, whereby the petitioner was denied the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The only ground mentioned for denial is that the petitioner's appointment was after 17.10.1988 and therefore the benefits cannot be liable to be extended. 5. The identical issue arose in case of Kalubhai Nathubhai Sonegara v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 2700 of 2016 decided on 30th November, 2017 by this Court. What is discussed, observed and held in paragraphs 5.1 to paragraph 6 in decision in Kalubhai Nathubhai Sonegara (supra) directly applies to the present case. They are as under. "5.1 In Patel Tarunkumar Shankarlal v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 12527 of 2013 with cognate petition, the petitioners were the employees of Gujarat Maritime Board who were work-charge employees appointed after 31st March, 1989. They are as under. "5.1 In Patel Tarunkumar Shankarlal v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 12527 of 2013 with cognate petition, the petitioners were the employees of Gujarat Maritime Board who were work-charge employees appointed after 31st March, 1989. Their grievance was similar to one involved in the present petition and that they were not given benefits of 6th Pay Commission, although all the work-charge employees appointed prior to 31st March, 1989 were granted the benefits. While contesting the said petition, respondents relied on Circular dated 31st March, 1989 of the Road & Building Department adopted by it, which was in connection with the State Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and according to the said Circular, conversion from daily-wagers to work-charge was restricted after 31st March, 1989 and appointment of daily-wagers was prohibited. Raising the said cutoff date, those petitioners were denied the benefits of 6th Pay Commission that they were appointed after the said date. The direction was prayed before the Court for grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits. The said petition came to be allowed by judgment dated 06th August, 2015. Learned Single Judge observed that it was incomprehensible that after having extending the benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 1998 for the petitioners, 6th Pay Commission benefits were denied and it was further observed that there was no rationale or basis for placing reliance on Circular dated 31st March, 1989. the decision in Patel Tarunkumar Shankarlal (supra) came to be confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1230 of 2015, decided on 23rd September, 2015 wherein the Court emphasise the equal treatment to be accorded to the homogeneous class of persons and disapproved the prescription of cut of date. Special Leave Petition Nos. 34352, 34353 of 2015 came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 04th January, 2016. The principle in the aforesaid decision directly applies to the case of the present petitioner. 5.2 Exactly similar was the case of Mansukh Arjanbhai Bhakhotara v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 2723 of 2016 decided on 23rd March, 2016. Those petitioners were identically placed with the present petitioners, who were dailywagers of the Irrigation Department as the present petitioner is, and claimed benefit of 6th Pay Commission as per the State Government Resolutions dated 27th February, 2009 and 15th March, 2010. Those petitioners were identically placed with the present petitioners, who were dailywagers of the Irrigation Department as the present petitioner is, and claimed benefit of 6th Pay Commission as per the State Government Resolutions dated 27th February, 2009 and 15th March, 2010. The said petition was allowed by negativing same defence raised and the respondents were directed to calculate and pay the necessary benefits as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations. 5.3 Decision in Mansukh Arjanbhai Bhakhotara (supra) was carried in Letters Patent Appeal No. 768 of 2016 which was decided and dismissed as per order dated 07th July, 2017. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Court relied on Patel Tarunkumar Shankarlal (supra). 6. In view of the above settled legal position, there is no gainsaying that the petitioner herein belongs to the similar class of person to be treated equally with Patel Tarunkumar Shankarlal (supra) and Mansukh Arjanbhai Bhakhotara (supra), to be extended the benefits of 6th Pay Commission recommendations. Denial of benefits to the petitioner is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 5.1 In view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed. Denying to the petitioner the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground of cutoff date as above cannot stand valid in eye of law. Such decision of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Resultantly, the office order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Morbi, is set aside. The respondents are directed to accord benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the conditions of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 6.1 Necessary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of copy of the present order. Failure on the part of the respondents to pay the due amount and the benefits to the petitioner would entail interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fling of the petition, that is from 12.07.2019 till actual payment. 7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted." 4. Considering the fact that the present petitioner is similarly situated employee, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. Ishan Joshi learned AGP would contend that the stand of the department is correct. 7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted." 4. Considering the fact that the present petitioner is similarly situated employee, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. Ishan Joshi learned AGP would contend that the stand of the department is correct. Once the reinstatement only happened in the year 2013, the respondents cannot be faulted to take a decision i.e. impugned in the petition. 6. However, considering the fact that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in case of Chandulal Mohanbhai (supra) and particularly the paragraphs which are reproduced herein above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2019 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the necessary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the resolution dated 17.10.1988 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure on the part of the respondents to pay the amount and the benefits to the petitioner, would entail interest @ 6% per annum on the ending of the period so stipulated." 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of para No. 21(C). Consequential benefits based on the prayer and revisions be made in the pay fixation to be paid to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.