ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-State. 2. By way of the present petition, petitioners herein seek directions upon the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners following the length of service of the petitioners as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v/s. PWD Employees Union & Ors. ETC. reported in 2013(8) Scale 579 , which is duly produced at Page-61. 3. In light of the aforesaid position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 11297 of 2016 dated 02.08.2016 and duly confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1268 of 2017 vide order dated 18.06.2018, whereby, the directions were issued to consider the case of the petitioners, in accordance with the government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and it was also further directed that such benefits could not be denied to the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioners have not worked 240 days. The petitioners herein also seek parity with the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 1563 of 1992 and allied matters, wherein, order dated 31.01.2013 came to be passed, following the ratio as laid down in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above. 4. The petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Court once again, this being a 3rd round of litigation seeking regularization of the services, in light of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the position of law as referred above and have prayed for the following reliefs: “A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners from retrospective effect from 1992 on the basis of G.R. dated 17/10/1988 on the basis of the length of services of the petitioners as mentioned in the said G.R.; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents to grant the benefits of Govt. Resolution dtd. Resolution dtd. 17.10.1988 to the petitioner, following the length of service of the petitioners and also as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as per the prevailing pay commission from the date of joining their respective service, as the services of the petitioners are eligible for benefit of Govt. resolution dtd. 17.10.1988, on completing 10 years of continuous service of each petitioner, along with interest in the interest of justice; (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as per the prevailing pay commission from the date of joining their respective service, as the services of the petitioner are eligible for benefit of Govt. Resolution dtd. 17.10.1988, on completing 10 years of continuous service of each petitioner, along with interest in the interest of justice, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (F) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the said decision of the Director of Horticulture Department of the State of Gujarat conveyed to the petitioner by communication BGT/ KHNG /KH - Court Case/ 490-91-17 dated 17th January, 2017 and further be pleased to declare the same to be unjust, arbitrary and illegal. (G) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent not to terminate the services of the petitioners and further direct the respondent to continue to give work for more than 240 days in a year and further direct the respondent not to give artificial break and further direct the respondent to give priority of work to the petitioners rather than those, who are subsequently appointed as daily wagers. (H) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent to calculate the final benefits as per G.R. dated 17.10.1988 after completion of 10 years of continuous service by each of the petitioners and submit the same before this Hon’ble Court. (I) The petitioners pray that since a small question of law is involved in this petition, therefore the present petition may be fixed immediately for final hearing. (I) The petitioners pray that since a small question of law is involved in this petition, therefore the present petition may be fixed immediately for final hearing. (J) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice; 5. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are working as ‘Skilled daily wagers’ in Nursery of horticultural department, State of Gujarat, since inception. Having served for more than 30 years, petitioners’ service came to be terminated by the respondent authority on 15.10.1999, without any reasons, which led to filing of Labour Reference (LCH) Case Nos. 85 of 2000 to 92 of 2000, whereby, the Labour Court awarded the back-wages alongwith the continuity of service to each of the workmen. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge by the petitioners preferring Special Civil Application Nos. 11421 of 2004 to 11428 of 2004, which came to be disposed of by order dated 02.03.2005, with a direction to reinstate the petitioners workmen with the same status and on the same post, however, quashed the order with respect to grant of back-wages. It is submitted that in light of the ratio as referred to herein-above, the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the government resolution dated 17.10.1988. 6. In the course of hearing, Mr. Soni, learned advocate has placed on record the order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No. 85 of 2000 to 92 of 2000, the same is taken on record, wherein, the said award was partly allowed and the State Government was directed to reinstate the petitioners herein on their original posts with continuity of their service alongwith back-wages and all consequential benefits. 7. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petitioners herein are compliant of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and also 240 days of their services and in view thereof, the prayers as prayed for, are required to be allowed. 8. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State placed reliance on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent, which is duly produced at Page-88. Ms. 8. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State placed reliance on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent, which is duly produced at Page-88. Ms. Ashar, learned AGP fairly submitted that the objection by the respondent – State was only with respect to the completion of 240 days of services for 10 years. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are working as Skilled daily wagers in Nursery of horticultural department of the respondent - State, since 21-24 years, the details of which is stated at Page-3 Para-3, which is also not in dispute, the same is produced herein-below: Sr.No. Name of Petitioner Date of Joining Tenure of service 1 Dipsang Mangaji Makwana 01.08.1992 24 years 2 Laxmansinh Jensinh Makwana 16.04.1992 24 years 3 Kalusinh Talsinh Makwana 01.05.1994 22 years 4 Dhanaji Balaji Makwana 02.02.1995 21 years 5 Masangji Chanduji Makwana 01.05.1994 22 years 6 Khodaji Mathurji Makwana 02.02.1995 21 years 7 Manabhai Kalabhai Rathod 08.06.1992 24 years 8 Savitaben Manabhai Rathod 08.06.1992 24 years 10.1. In the aforesaid set of facts, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v/s. PWD Employees Union & Ors. ETC. reported in 2013(8) Scale 579 , wherein, in Para-23 to 26 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “23. The decisions in Uma Devi (supra) and A. Umarani (supra) were regarding the question concerning regularization of employees entered by back door method or those who were illegally appointed encouraging a political set up, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both the aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case i.e. to the members of the respondent- Employees Union for the following reasons: (i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat by his order dated 3rd May, 2008 held that initially the entry of the daily wagers do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity but is in consonance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the question of regularization by removing procedural defects does not arise. Therefore, the question of regularization by removing procedural defects does not arise. (ii) The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated 29th October, 2010 passed in SCA No.8647 of 2008 while noticing the aforesaid stand taken by the State also held that the nature of work described in the order dated 3rd May, 2008 shows that the daily wage-workers are engaged in the work which is perennial in nature. (iii) The case of A.Uma Rani (supra) related to regularization of services of irregular appointees. In the said case this Court held that when appointments are made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed therein and in ignorance of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State. 24. Thus, the principal question that falls to be considered in these appeals is whether in the facts and circumstances it will be desirable for the Court to direct the appellants to straightaway regularize the services of all the daily wage workers working for more than five years or the daily wage workers working for more than five years are entitled for some other relief. 25. As per scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 all the daily wage workers were not entitled for regularization or permanency in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits: “(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. (ii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/she will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iv) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 26. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Gujarat High Court dated 29th October, 2010 in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 to all the daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at Paragraph 25 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th October, 2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28th February, 2012 stands modified to the extent above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th October, 2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28th February, 2012 stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefit w.e.f. 29th October, 2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant- State and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs.” 10.1.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision categorically held that the benefits of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988 is the benefits to be granted to the eligible daily wagers of Forest and Environment Department who had worked for more than five years, including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing, but they would be entitled for the consequential benefits w.e.f. 29.10.2010 or subsequent date from which they are eligible within four months from the date of receipt/ production of the copy of the order. 10.2. The aforesaid decision was followed in the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11297 of 2016, order dated 02.08.2016, it was the petition, which was filed by the petitioners herein, wherein, the Court has observed in Para-4 to 7, which reads thus: “4. It is on the basis of the aforesaid facts and assertions that the petitioners have claimed the benefits flowing from Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Further prayers are made in this petition for which they have relied on decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. P.W.D. Employees Union [ 2013 (8) SCALE 579 ]. 4.1 The Supreme Court in P.W.D. Employees Union (supra) held that Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be kept limited for its operation and grant of benefits thereunder, only to the department namely Road and Buildings Department, but would be applicable to all daily based employees working under the different departments of the State. The petitioners in that case were the daily rated employees working in the forest department. The petitioners in that case were the daily rated employees working in the forest department. 4.2 In paragraph 24 of PWD Employees Union(supra), the Supreme Court held that Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would be applicable to the employees of different departments doing any nature of work other than building, maintenance or repairing work. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the benefits flowing from Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as under, “(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. (ii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/she will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iv) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 4.3 Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed to make available the benefits of State Government Resolution dated 17.10.19888 to the petitioner employees. It was submitted on the basis of the above that the present petitioners are also entitled to the benefits arising from Resolution in question on the basis of long years of service he has put in. 4.4 Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply in which it is mainly contested to submit that the petitioners joined the services under respondent No.2 between the years 1992 to 1995. It was submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, there was a prohibition upon the appointment of the new skilled workmen. It was therefore submitted that the petitioners were irregular since inception and they were not entitled to the benefits of the Resolution. The stand prima facie does not appear to be justified inasmuch the object of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is to give the benefits on the basis of length of services to the employees whose status happen to be daily rated by giving benefits provided in the Resolution. They are given the benefits of security in service and permanency. 5. In the aforesaid view, when the petitioners have put in long years of service under the respondents and considering the decision of this Court and decision of the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (supra), interest of justice would be sub- served if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits under the aforesaid Resolution. 6. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents through their competent authority to examine and consider the case of the petitioners for the purpose of granting benefit available under State Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners as well as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in PWD Employees Union(supra). The competent authority is directed to complete the said exercise expeditiously and within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. It is observed that in the event, the competent authority finds the petitioners entitled to be extended the benefits under the Resolution, the same shall be conferred on them without any delay. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 10.3. The aforesaid was the subject matter of Appeal, whereby, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1268 of 2017, the aforesaid order passed in Special Civil Application No. 11297 of 2016 came to be confirmed vide order dated 18.06.2018. It is apposite to refer to Para-5 and 6, which reads thus: “(5) Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid facts and discussion is that the present respondent workman is denied the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in a year and his “continuity of service”, as granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 23.07.2007 and confirmed by this court, cannot be considered. The stand taken by the present appellants that the respondent workman is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 deserves to be deprecated. Once it has been established by this court that the respondent – workman is reinstated in service with continuity of service, the workman would be entitled to get the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and such benefits cannot be denied to the respondent-workman only on the ground that he has not worked for 240 days. He was forced to live without work because of his illegal termination. The appellants cannot take benefit of their illegal action. The termination of the respondent workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a daily wager. The appellants cannot take benefit of their illegal action. The termination of the respondent workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a daily wager. The impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is blissfully silent about denying the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen who have been reinstated with continuity of service. The Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 01.05.1991 envisage grant of benefits of pay fixation, pension, etc. to the daily wagers, who have completed certain number of years of service. (6) We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in order dated 05.05.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.7713 of 2016.” 10.4. It is apposite to refer to the judgment and order dated 31.01.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1563 of 1992 and allied matters, wherein, the aforesaid issue was considered and the judgment and order came to be passed, wherein, relevant Paragraphs 8 to 12 reads thus: “8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, this Court finds that Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 inter alia provided that no appointment as daily wager shall be made by any office thereafter. Said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was adopted as a policy by the respondent Board vide circular dated 08.06.1989. The said circular dated 08.06.1989 is on record along with affidavit in rejoinder. As per the said policy of the Government, no appointment was to be made as daily wager, thereafter. It needs to be observed that this policy of the Government has remained only on paper, and considering the nature of work of different Governmental organizations performing public duties, like the respondent Board which is assigned with the public duty of water supply and sewerage, the said policy is observed more in breach than in compliance. In this background, daily wagers continued to be appointed even in the respondent Board, even after circular of the Board dated 08.03.1989, and therefore the respondent Board again issued a circular dated 30.11.1994, reiterating that no more daily wagers be now appointed. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw was specifically asked to confirm that atleast after 30.11.1994, no daily wager is appointed in the respondent Board. To this, learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw was specifically asked to confirm that atleast after 30.11.1994, no daily wager is appointed in the respondent Board. To this, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, after taking instructions from the authorities of the respondent Board, had stated that even after 30.11.1994, hundreds of daily wagers are appointed in the different offices of the respondent Board. Statement giving details in this regard is also placed on record. The present petitioners are denied benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that they are appointed after circular of the respondent Board dated 30.11.1994, and the said circular provided that no more daily wagers would now be appointed. In this regard it needs to be recorded that, no daily wager was to be appointed after 1988/1989 by the respondent Board as per its own policy, then also such appointments were made and they are given benefit also flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Respondent Board reiterated such policy on 30.11.1994 and no daily wager was to be appointed thereafter but still the respondent Board appointed hundreds of such persons, like the petitioners. Further it would be wrong to call such appointments as an illegality by the respondent Board, since the same was for its genuine needs, to discharge its obligation of public service. When it comes to grant of benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to these daily wagers, it is the management of the respondent Board which terms its action of appointing these daily wagers as an illegality, which is not only not acceptable in law but needs to be rejected and deprecated. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust versus Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 310 , wherein, the Supreme Court has held to the effect that an employer can not agitate that he had committed some illegality at some point of time and therefore, the concerned employee is not entitled to some benefit. In view of this judgment, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent Board that daily wagers appointed by them after 30.11.1994, were illegal appointees and therefore they are not entitled to any relief, is rejected. 9. In view of this judgment, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent Board that daily wagers appointed by them after 30.11.1994, were illegal appointees and therefore they are not entitled to any relief, is rejected. 9. So far reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent Board on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.26790 of 2007 and cognate matters dated 01.07.2009 is concerned, I find that the circular of the respondent Board dated 08.06.1989 was not put to the notice of the Court and the effect of its subsequent circular dated 30.11.1994 was also not point at issue. Further, after upholding the said order dated 01.07.2009 by the Division Bench on 11.10.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2117 of 2010, there is subsequent decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2011 and even an Special Leave Petition against the said judgment is dismissed as noted above. Further, the said, subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2011 is exactly on the point which is under consideration in this group of petitions. Under these circumstances, I am bound by this subsequent decision of Division Bench of this Court, which is followed to record this judgment and order, in this group of petitions. Learned advocate for the respondent Board has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghavendra Rao and Others versus State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 635 , to contend that when the appointments were not made legally, the appointees can not claim benefits. However, as recorded above, the view expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Baratiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra) is not only subsequent and will have binding force, but on facts, is squarely applicable in this group of petitions, which this Court has followed. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and law as discussed above, I find that the grouping of daily wagers sought to be made by the respondent Board on the basis of the cut off date of 30.11.1994, to deny benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is illegal and arbitrary and the same is rejected. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and law as discussed above, I find that the grouping of daily wagers sought to be made by the respondent Board on the basis of the cut off date of 30.11.1994, to deny benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is illegal and arbitrary and the same is rejected. It is held that even those daily wagers who are appointed after 30.11.1994 shall also be extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and thus, they will stand at par with the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 and shall also be entitled to the benefits, which are claimed by and are directed to be paid to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992. 11. It is indicated by Learned advocates for the respondent Board that, during pendency of these petitions, some of the petitioners, either have abandoned their job and one was terminated for misconduct, by the respondent Board. In this regard therefore it is clarified that, while giving effect to the directions contained in this judgment and order, such persons shall be entitled to benefits only till they were in service and the judgment in this petitions ipso facto would not result in their reinstatement in any manner. 12. For the reasons recorded above, all these petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to these petitioners, as directed and clarified by this Court in the judgment and order dated 18.03.2011 recorded in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2011 and cognate matters. The calculation regarding the benefits flowing from these directions shall be made within a period of four months from today and actual payment thereof shall be made to the petitioners within a period of eight months from today.” 11. The calculation regarding the benefits flowing from these directions shall be made within a period of four months from today and actual payment thereof shall be made to the petitioners within a period of eight months from today.” 11. In light of the aforesaid decisions as referred above and in light of the aforesaid undisputed facts of the present case that the petitioners are working as skilled daily wagers in Nursery of horticultural department of respondent – State since 21-24 years, the benefits of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988, are directed to be extended by orders passed by this Court from time to time to all the departments, and in view thereof, the petition is required to be allowed on the aforesaid ground, and also, in view of the fact that the Labour Court has also accorded with the continuity of service of the petitioners herein by order dated 15.04.2004. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it fit to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, by directing the respondent authorities to accord the benefits to the petitioners in accordance with the conditions of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988. The necessary benefits be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order. Failure to pay within the aforesaid time, will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of presentation of petition, i.e. 03.04.2017. 13. The present Petition stands allowed, to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.