JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Admit. Mr. Mahor Rahevar, learned AGP waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent. 2. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed in captioned writ petition whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent-State authorities to pay lump sum compensation to the family of the deceased petitioner to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- instead of paying the benefits arising from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the appellant at the outset has submitted that this was not the case of termination wherein the learned Single Judge could have directed the payment of lump sum compensation. He has submitted that similarly situated employees to the late husband of the appellant - petitioner, were extended the benefits arising out of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and they are confirmed the higher pay-scales accordingly. He has referred to the award dated (Nil) January, 1996 by the Labour Court, Valsad. He has submitted that there were similar set of employees, who had also filed reference against the illegal termination and all those reference proceedings were disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. He has submitted that as per the settlement, the late husband of the appellant was reinstated in service without any back wages. 4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate has submitted that the late husband of the appellant- petitioner was appointed on 01.11.1987 and thereafter, he was terminated along with other employees on 19.09.1988 which ultimately, culminated into reference proceedings along with other employees. It is submitted that thus, the benefits arising out of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was required to be paid to the late husband of the appellant as he was reinstated with continuity of service without back wages. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2023 and allied matters and submitted that on an identical issue the Division Bench directed the State authorities to confer the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Thus, it is urged that the present Letter Patent Appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Per contra, Mr. Thus, it is urged that the present Letter Patent Appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rahevar, learned AGP has submitted that the late husband of the appellant-petitioner since had only worked for one year after he was appointed, he cannot be conferred with the benefits arising out of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. The writ petition has been filed by one Fulsingbhai L. Pawar claiming the benefits arising out of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. During the pendency of the writ petition, he passed away, and he is being represented by his wife - appellant as a legal heir. 8. The facts, as narrated herein above with regard to the appointment and termination as well as reinstatement of the late husband of the appellant, are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the late husband of the appellant was appointed on 01.11.1987 and he was terminated on 19.09.1988 along with other employees. The dispute culminated into reference proceedings being Reference (LCV) Nos.1860 to 1861, and 1863 to 1867 of 1990. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the deceased petitioner along with his juniors was reinstated with continuity of service without back wages. One of the condition of the settlement was absorption of the employees on the post of Grade ‘D’ staff, as and when the same falls vacant. The deceased petitioner also demanded the benefit flowing from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, since his juniors were paid however, he was not paid. Thus, having reinstated with continuity of service, the late husband of the appellant would be entitled to all the benefits arising from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which has been conferred to other employees. The scheme of the Resolution dated 17.01.1988, was promulgated by the State Government to confer the regular payscale to a daily wager, who completes five or ten years of service. 9. It is pertinent to note that in the case of the co-employees/colleagues of the deceased petitioner, the Division Bench in the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2023 has held thus: “6. 9. It is pertinent to note that in the case of the co-employees/colleagues of the deceased petitioner, the Division Bench in the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2023 has held thus: “6. There is no aspect in the facts of this case, which would require limiting the relief regarding grant of arrears from a particular date only. However, amongst the appellants, the case of two appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 2023 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 127 of 2023 named Yashvant R. Gayakvad and Chandubhai Gulabbhai Dalvi respectively would stand on different footing. This is in view of the undisputed fact stated in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent that the said two appellants who had also approached Labour Court entered into a settlement with the employer. At the time of settlement, since two posts were available, the claim of the said appellants petitioners was accepted by the authorities and they were regularised in service as per their seniority. 6.1 The consent terms/settlement was acted upon and the said two petitioners came to be given regular appointment to the post of Gallery Attendant. It was pointed out that the case of the above two petitioners-appellants could be considered at that time in view of the fact that two posts were available and the other petitioners remained continued as daily wagers who became the rest of the petitioners in the present proceedings. 6.2 Since the appellants-petitioners in two Letters Patent Appeals mentioned above arrived at a settlement in the course of the reference proceedings and their services came to be regularised in the year 1986, the question of their agitating for benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 does not arise. They on their own volition entered into settlement. They cannot be permitted to now fall back upon their claim for grant of benefit under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 since they have already been regularised under the settlement. Therefore, the said two Letters Patent Appeals could not be entertained. 6.3. It was Government pointed Pleader out that by out learned of the Assistant above three appeals, appellants named Dhundiyabhai Pahujyabhai Chaudhari and of Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2023 Bhavanbhai Sonyabhai Vaghera, appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 148 of 2023 have already retired having reached the superannuation on 31.08.2017 and 30.06.2020 respectively. 6.4. 6.3. It was Government pointed Pleader out that by out learned of the Assistant above three appeals, appellants named Dhundiyabhai Pahujyabhai Chaudhari and of Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2023 Bhavanbhai Sonyabhai Vaghera, appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 148 of 2023 have already retired having reached the superannuation on 31.08.2017 and 30.06.2020 respectively. 6.4. In the aforesaid view, all those appellants- workmen who are in service or have retired are entitled to be considered for grant of benefits flowing from Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of the length of the services they rendered, reckoned from initial date of their appointment.” 10. Thus, the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench in the case of the colleagues/co-employees of the deceased petitioner, will equally apply in the case of the husband of the appellant. The Coordinate Bench has directed to consider their case for grant of benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out to us hence, we are inclined to accept the observations and directions issued by the Coordinate Bench. 11. We have also considered the directions issued by the learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents – State authorities to grant lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner (late husband of the appellant). Such type of direction is absolutely uncalled for as the issue raised in the writ petition was not remotely connected to reinstatement in lieu of lump sum compensation. The benefits of conferring the regular pay scale to a daily wager after completion of particular number of years as per the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, cannot be computed and granted by lump sum compensation. After, such benefits are conferred; they are also entitled to retirement benefits. Hence, the direction issued for granting compensation in lieu of benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is irrational, and cannot be sustained and is accordingly, quashed and set aside. 12. The Letters Patent Appeal succeeds. The same is allowed. The respondents are directed to confer the benefits arising out of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the appellant in line with the benefits conferred to the co-employees of the deceased petitioner. Such benefits shall be granted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 13. Direct service is permitted.