JUDGMENT : (Pranav Trivedi, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assail the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2024 in Special Civil Application No.16450 of 2023 and Special Civil Application No.19240 of 2023. Since both the appeals have common issue, we are taking both the appeals for adjudication. For understanding the facts, we are taking facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.503 of 2024 as lead matter. 2. The prayer, as prayed by the appellant – original petitioner in the writ petition was for seeking direction to extend the benefit of continuity in service from the date of termination till the reinstatement on 10.05.2023. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments made by both the parties rejected the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. The factual matrix which led to filing of the writ petition was that the petitioner got enrolled as Rojamdar – daily wager with the respondent Forest Department in the year 1999. Pursuant to the work done by the petitioner he was paid wages in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948. In the year 2015, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being Special Civil Application No.3895 of 2015 and other allied matters seeking benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. This Hon’ble Court passed an order to consider the case of the petitioner and other petitioners for grant of benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 vis-a-vis Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. 5. Pursuant to the directions given by this Hon’ble Court, the representations of the petitioner and other allied workers were considered. By way of an order dated 18.06.2015 the authorities not only rejected the claim of the petitioner for getting the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 but also removed the petitioner from service i.e. terminated the services. This order remained unchallenged for almost eight years. 6. In the year 2023 i.e. almost after 8 years of order of termination dated 18.06.2015, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2856 and other allied matters. This order remained unchallenged for almost eight years. 6. In the year 2023 i.e. almost after 8 years of order of termination dated 18.06.2015, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2856 and other allied matters. The learned Single Judge insofar as granting the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 thought it fit that at least the benefit of Government Resolution had accrued in favour of the petitioner till the date of termination. This observation was based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Versus Management of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 1985 4 SCC 71 . It was also observed that the State had legitimate right to oppose the petition insofar as the aspect of termination is considered more particularly on the ground of delay. It was also observed that learned advocate for the petitioner had made consensus that to balance the equities, any condition that may be deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble Court may be imposed by the Hon’ble Court and the petitioner may be granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In such factual scenario, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were extended till the date of termination of services i.e. till 18.06.2015. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest. Upon instructions of learned advocate for the petitioner, even the claim of back-wages was forgone. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that pursuant to delay of almost 8 years there would not be legitimate right of the petitioner to claim reinstatement, however, the State, if deemed fit, may consider reinstatement sympathetically. For perusal, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2856 of 2023 and allied matters are reproduced as under: “8. Having regard to the above observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are relegated to the respondents authorities and whereas the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners as directed by this Court. Having regard to the above observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are relegated to the respondents authorities and whereas the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners as directed by this Court. Having regard to the same, the following directions are passed : (i) The petitioners to submit a detail representation, if required by relying the judgments of this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to grant of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upto the date of termination i.e. 18.06.2015, more particularly the petitioners, may make appropriate representation and contend that the petitioners would have indeed worked for more than 240 days for approximately more than 10 years. (ii) Such representation shall be preferred within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. (iii) Upon such representation being received, the respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of the same. (vi) In case the respondents authorities came to a conclusion that the petitioners would be entitled to benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upto the date of termination i.e. 18.06.2015, then the respondents shall make appropriate payments within a period of 06 weeks thereafter. (v) It is clarified that the petitioners shall not be entitled for any interest from the date of the order of termination i.e. 18.06.2015 till the actual payment i.e. within 06 weeks from the date of the decision. (vi) In case the respondents authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioners were indeed entitled to benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, more particularly if the authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days for around 10 years as the petitioners claim, then the respondents shall also consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement sympathetically. (vii) In case the respondents consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement, the petitioners, as fairly submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Desai, upon instructions, shall not claim any back-wages for the period between the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, if any. (vii) In case the respondents consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement, the petitioners, as fairly submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Desai, upon instructions, shall not claim any back-wages for the period between the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, if any. (viii) In case the petitioners are aggrieved by decision of the respondent authorities either on (i) the aspect of entitlement of the petitioners to benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and (ii) with regard to reinstatement in service, then it would be open for the petitioners to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations and directions, the present petitions are disposed of as partly allowed.” 7. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge representation was made to the authorities. The authorities granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner till the date of his termination. Further, the State Government also considered sympathetically and granted reinstatement by way of order dated 04.01.2024 with a condition that from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement the continuity would not be given to the petitioner. It is this observation of not granting continuity which was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the petitioner which is now assailed in the present appeals. 8. We have heard Mr.Chintan Desai, learned advocate for the appellants. 9. Mr.Desai, learned advocate for the appellants had submitted that once the authorities had reinstated the appellants then the issue of continuity was automatic. The termination was ex-facie illegal and such mistake was rectified by the respondent authorities themselves. Therefore, not granting continuity of service would lead to an anomaly where the whole service of the petitioner would go in vain. Learned advocate for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 would submit that once the reinstatement is made then continuity of service is the normal rule and continuity would be matter of right. Placing reliance on such aspect, learned advocate Mr.Desai has prayed to consider prayer of the appellants. 10. Having heard learned advocate Mr.Desai and having gone through the records some peculiar facts are necessary. Placing reliance on such aspect, learned advocate Mr.Desai has prayed to consider prayer of the appellants. 10. Having heard learned advocate Mr.Desai and having gone through the records some peculiar facts are necessary. 10.1 The termination was in the year 2015 and the appellant had sat tight on the right for considerable period of eight years. The fact is not in dispute that there was laxity on the part of the appellants to assert their rights and had allowed their cause of action to drift away and after such lapse the cause of action was challenged by preferring petition in the year 2023 only. The learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation in writ petition had not set aside the termination of the appellants. The relief was given only for giving benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 till the date of their termination. The appellants even at that junction were non-suited to ask for reinstatement being an indolent litigant. However, the learned Single Judge had permitted the authorities to consider the case of the appellants sympathetically even on assertion that the appellants would forego the rights of backwages. Therefore, the question would be that whether an indolent litigant having sympathetically got the benefits of reinstatement can be permitted to further raise cause for continuity. In our considered opinion, the answer is in ‘negative’. It was not a matter of right that the appellants were reinstated but once sympathy is shown to them the attempt made by the appellants to assert their right is an issue which is not required to be considered and has to be answered in ‘negative’. The citation as relied upon by learned advocate for the applicant would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as in the present case the petitioner has only been reinstated on sympathetic measure despite the appellant being non- suited on the ground of delay. We thereby agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under: “5. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned AGP. We thereby agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under: “5. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned AGP. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the petitioners had approached this Court immediately upon their termination and whereas the resultant effect would have been an order akin to the order dated 10.01.2024 having been passed, then the petitioners would be definitely justified in submitting that the interregnum period i.e. the period between date of termination to date of reinstatement should be treated as period in continuous service. In the instant case, the petitioners having not challenged the order of termination for 8 long years, have given up any right whatsoever available to them for seeking grant of continuity in service. While it would also appear that the petitioners may have been terminated after approaching this Court, but at the same time the fact of the petitioners not having challenged the order of termination would, in the opinion of this Court, disentitle them for claiming any reliefs insofar as the interregnum period, more particularly considering the fact that the petitioner had waited for 08 long years to seek for benefit under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 6. For the reason above, the request made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is rejected. The interregnum period shall be treated as period not in service as decided by the respondent authorities. The petitioners shall be entitled for claiming the period prior to the date of termination to be added along with the services rendered by the petitioners after reinstatement for the purpose of calculating of pension and other retiral benefits. If any consequential benefit is not paid as per the order dated 10.01.2024, the same shall be paid within a period of 08 weeks. 7. With the above observations and directions, the present petitions stand disposed of as allowed.” 11. We thereby confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge and both the appeals being meritless are summarily rejected. No order as to costs. The connected Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.