ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. All these appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common oral judgment dated 25.08.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11219 of 2022 and allied matters. 2. Looking to the issue involved in the present appeals and as the learned Singe Judge passed common judgment, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that all the appeals be heard together. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod for the respondent No.1 – original petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts as stated in Special Civil Application No.11219 of 2022 are considered, which read as under. 4.1. It is the case of the original petitioner that he was working as permanent labour employee with the original respondents. It is stated that petitioner was appointed by the original respondent No.5 in the year 1990 at Rapar Irrigation Sub Division. He was getting Rs.2,300/- per month by way of salary. The original petitioner has continuously worked with the original respondent Department. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated illegally in the year 2001 and therefore he raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bhuj. The concerned Labour Court, vide Award dated 17.08.2005, allowed the Reference and directed the concerned respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and with back-wages. The concerned respondents challenged the said Award by filing a petition before this Court. 4.2. It is further the case of the original petitioner that on 26.02.2013, the petition filed by the respondents came to be partly allowed and so far as grant of back-wages is concerned, the said part of the Award was quashed and set aside, however, the Award with regard to reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. 4.3. The petitioner filed the captioned petition in which the petitioner has stated that he is entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as similar type of benefits were given to other similarly situated employees. 4.4. 4.3. The petitioner filed the captioned petition in which the petitioner has stated that he is entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as similar type of benefits were given to other similarly situated employees. 4.4. It is pointed out in the said petition that petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.20893 of 2015 before this Court and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2018, whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents to take appropriate decision in light of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and pass appropriate order. Thereafter, the respondents issued Office Order dated 30.03.2019 and granted the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 after completion of five and ten years of services. The other benefits were also granted. However, the concerned respondent did not grant the benefits of arrears of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 as well as arrears of 6th Pay Commission. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.14819 of 2021 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 24.11.2021, directed the concerned respondents to take appropriate steps with regard to grant of arrears as available to the petitioner with regard to G.R. dated 17.10.1988. The direction was also given to the concerned respondents to take appropriate decision with regard to the arrears of 6th Pay Commission and with regard to opening of General Provident Fund Account. 4.5. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the captioned petition that by way of impugned order dated 19.04.2022, the concerned respondents had denied the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that the petitioner was appointed after 17.10.1988. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned petition. The learned Single Judge, by way of impugned common judgment, allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and thereby directed the respondents – present appellants to grant the benefits of the arrears that accrue to the petitioners in light of the benefits given to them by virtue of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all consequential benefits within stipulated period. 4.6. The original respondent Nos. 3 to 5 – present appellants have, therefore, filed the present appeals. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the appellants has mainly contended that the original petitioners were appointed after the issuance of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and therefore they are not entitled to get the benefits of arrears as prayed for by them in the captioned petition. 3 to 5 – present appellants have, therefore, filed the present appeals. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the appellants has mainly contended that the original petitioners were appointed after the issuance of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and therefore they are not entitled to get the benefits of arrears as prayed for by them in the captioned petition. It is further submitted that the appellants passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 relying upon the decision taken by the Government on 14.02.2022. Thus, the appellants have not committed any error while denying the benefits as prayed for by the original petitioners. In spite of that, the learned Single Judge has issued the aforesaid directions. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Rathod appearing for respondent No.1 in each petition – original petitioner has opposed these appeals and pointed out from the record that in fact pursuant to the directions dated 01.11.2018 issued by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.20893 of 2015, the appellants have granted the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the original petitioner. Learned advocate has referred to the documents which are produced on record at page 27, 29 and 30 of the compilation. It is submitted that the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 were given to all the petitioners. However, the concerned respondents had not granted the arrears as well as payment of arrears of 6th Pay Commission and GPF account was not opened and therefore petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.14550 of 2021 and allied matters. It is submitted that this Court, vide common oral order dated 24.11.2021, disposed of the said petitions. Copy of the said order is placed on record at page 32 of the compilation. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod has referred to the directions issued by this Court in the said order. 7. It is submitted that once the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is already given to the petitioners, it is not permissible to the concerned respondents to deny the benefit of said G.R. on the ground that the petitioners were appointed after 17.10.1988. Thus, it is submitted by learned advocate that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod, therefore, urged that these appeals be dismissed. 8. Thus, it is submitted by learned advocate that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod, therefore, urged that these appeals be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.11.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.20893 of 2015, the present appellants – original respondents have in fact granted the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the concerned petitioners. Copies of the Office Order are placed on record at page 27, 29 and 30 of the compilation. However, the grievance of the petitioners at the relevant point of time was that the arrears were not given to the petitioners and therefore they filed Special Civil Application No.14550 of 2021 and allied matters. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide common oral order dated 24.11.2021, issued following directions: “Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties following directions are issued: The concerned respondents are directed to take appropriate steps with regard to grant of arrears as available to the petitioners upon payment of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and furthermore the respondents shall also take an appropriate decision with regard to payment of arrears of 6th Pay Commission and also with regard to opening of GPF account of the present petitioners. Such decision and appropriate disbursement shall be made by the respondent authorities within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of order this Court of this Court. In case the respondents are of the opinion that any of the benefits as mentioned herein-above is not within the entitlement of any of the petitioner then appropriate speaking order shall be passed and shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing. Needless to clarify that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by any decision passed by the respondents it would be open for the petitioners to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.” 9. Thus, from the aforesaid observations, it is clear that specific direction was given to the original respondents – present appellants to take appropriate steps with regard to grant of arrears as available to the petitioners upon payment of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Thus, from the aforesaid observations, it is clear that specific direction was given to the original respondents – present appellants to take appropriate steps with regard to grant of arrears as available to the petitioners upon payment of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In spite of such specific direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid order, the respondents – present appellants passed the order dated 19.04.2022 and by relying upon the communication dated 14.02.2022 from the concerned Department, it was informed to the petitioners that they are not entitled to get the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 as they have been appointed after 17.10.1988. 10. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that it was not permissible for the present appellants to take such a decision as the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20893 of 2015 has been complied with by the present appellants. The said order is not challenged by the appellants and therefore it has attained finality. Moreover, once again the direction was issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide common oral order dated 24.11.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.14550 of 2021 and allied matters and therefore present appellants were required to comply with the said direction. The order dated 24.11.2021 has also attained finality. Thus, we are of the view that it is not open for the present appellants to contend that the original petitioners were appointed after 17.10.1988 and therefore they are not entitled to get the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. 11. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned common judgment and we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error and therefore no interference is required in the present appeals. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of the main appeals, civil applications do not survive and according stand disposed of.