ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 19.09.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10916 of 2020. 2. Heard Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant-original respondent No.2, Mr. J.V. Japee, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 18 original petitioners and Mr.Ronak Raval, learned AGP for respondent No.9- State of Gujarat. 3. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant mainly submits that all the original petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground as per the policy of the State Government. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioners were on fixed salary basis for a period of five years and that to ad-hoc basis. On completion of five years of ad-hoc services, the present appellant has passed order for giving regular pay scale to the original petitioners. It is submitted that as regular pay scale was not granted to the petitioners, they have preferred captioned petition in which, the original petitioners had prayed that the respondent authority be directed to pass orders for giving the regular pay scale applicable to the respective posts on which the petitioners came to be appointed as per the statement annexed at Annexure-A to the writ petition and the same be made applicable to the petitioners from the initial date of appointment. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the said petition and thereby directed the present appellant to issue modified orders of appointment and place the original petitioners in the regular pay scale from their initial date of appointment in the respective cadres. As far as arrears are concerned, the benefit shall be given to the original petitioners only with effect from 01.01.2020. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that because of the said direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. It is further submitted that the concerned petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground on fixed salary basis in the year 2004, for a period of five years. At the relevant point of time, they accepted the said appointment, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to claim regular pay scale from their initial date of appointment. Learned advocate for the appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. At the relevant point of time, they accepted the said appointment, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to claim regular pay scale from their initial date of appointment. Learned advocate for the appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.J.V. Japee for the respondents-original petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition mainly relying upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14642 of 2019. It is further submitted that against the said order passed in the said petition, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.855 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the State Government. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the issue involved in the present matter is covered by the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while issuing the impugned direction, and therefore, this appeal be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it reveals that the original petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2004 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004. They were appointed for a period of five years for fix pay scale and as per the policy of the State Government. As contended by the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw that on completion of five years, their services will be considered as regular service. As observed hereinabove, the original petitioners filed the captioned petition claiming regular pay scale from their initial date of appointment and the learned Single Judge directed the present appellant-original respondent to issue modified orders of appointment in case of all the petitioners and placed them in regular scale of pay from their initial date of appointment in the respective cadres. While issuing such direction, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.14642 of 2019. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the relevant paragraph of the said order. 7. While issuing such direction, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.14642 of 2019. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the relevant paragraph of the said order. 7. It is pertinent to note that against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said petition, the State preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.855 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2022 dismissed the said appeal along with other appeals filed by the concerned appellants. The Division Bench has recorded the contention of the learned advocates for the parties observing para 7 to 11 as under: “7. Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – District Panchayat, has vehemently submitted that learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the petitions only on the ground that the petitions of each petitioner suffered from delay and laches for claiming the socalled rights since the petitions have been filed after a period of 15 years i.e. petitions filed in the year 2019-2020 and claiming the rights from their initial date of appointment i.e. in or around the year 2005. He would submit that during interregnum period of 15 years, they have been given higher pay scale and have also been promoted; however, they remained sleeping over their rights, and therefore they were not entitled for any relief, which has been granted by learned Single Judge. By taking us through the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the State Government in the case of Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, he has tried to distinguish his case and would submit that the appeal be admitted and interim relief be granted. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Bhargavi G. Thakar, learned advocate for the respondents herein – original petitioners, has vehemently opposed these appeals and supported the findings of learned Single Judge. She would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the policy prevailing, which is applicable to each petitioner, who has been appointed on compassionate appointment, if applied, each petitioner should have been given regular pay scale and ought not to have been given fixed pay scale, which was given as per the subsequent policy, which has come into force after the appointment of each of the petitioners. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 , and would submit that the appeals be dismissed. She would further submit that as far as delay is concerned, learned Single Judge has considered the case of Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, who has also been given the benefits from the date of his appointment i.e. from initial appointment dated 23.07.2004, and that too, a petition was filed by him in the year 2017 i.e. after a period of 13 years. She would submit that even learned Single Judge has kept the aspect of delay in approaching this Court seeking the reliefs, as prayed for by him, has not granted any arrears from 31.12.2004 to 20.12.2019. The arrears are to be given with effect from 01.01.2020 i.e. from the date of filing of the petition. She, therefore, would submit that the appeals be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the policy, which was prevailing in the year 2015, when the respondent employee was appointed, there was no policy of giving appointment on fixed pay for a period of five years, and therefore, the decision in case of the State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the case, and therefore, the policy, which was prevailing on the date of their appointment would come into play. 11. As far as delay is concerned, it is true that the petitioners have approached after a long period; however, if the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the concerned authority is perused, the said Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, who was appointed on compassionate ground on 23.07.2003 and was given all the benefits subsequent to petition filed by him before this Court in the year 2017, and thus, the State Government itself has condoned the delay with regard to claim put forward by said Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, and therefore, all the respondents employee in the appeals herein are also required to be given similar treatment. Learned Single Judge has also kept in mind for filing the petition at belated stage and has observed accordingly. Learned Single Judge has also kept in mind for filing the petition at belated stage and has observed accordingly. Learned Single Judge has not granted any arrears from their initial date of appointment and has granted the benefits from 01.01.2010, and therefore, no interference is required in the order passed by learned Single Judge. Hence, present appeals stand dismissed.” 8. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application would not survive and the same is disposed of.