JUDGMENT : (Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs : “A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the benefits under Government Resolution 17.10.1988, vide vide letter dated 06.08.2018 from respondent no.4, as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, opposed to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed in PWD Employees’ Union matter and the directions of this Hon’ble Court in its oral order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Special Civil Application no.20494 of 2017, and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same; B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to extend the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 09.07.2013 (reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579 ) to the petitioner from the date he became eligible for such benefits with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances; BA. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent authorities, orally terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2018, as illegal, bad in law, contrary to principles of natural justice and thus, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same; BB. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned communication dated 16.05.2019 from the respondent no.5 as illegal, bad in law, contrary to the principles of natural justice and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same; BC. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and continuity of service. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and continuity of service. C. Your Lordships be pleased to permanently restrain the respondents herein from changing the service conditions of the petitioner to contract labour by way of outsourcing or terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law; D. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the decision dated 06.08.2018 and to direct the respondent authorities to process the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; E. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the wages of the petitioner from April 2018 which are outstanding; F. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from contracting out petitioner’s services or taking any coercive action against or terminating the services of, the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law; and G. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed it, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is seeking the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Roads and Buildings Department. The petitioner herein is working in the Forest and Environment Department since several years; having been appointed on piece rate basis in the office of the respondent No.5 on 01.07.2010. 3.1 The petitioner herein preferred Special Civil Application No.20494 of 2017 seeking the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 08.05.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No.7160 of 2014 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 and that, the petitioners were similarly situated and in that of view, entitled to the benefits of the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 wherein, by order dated 26.04.2018, following direction came to be issued: “5. In view of the above, the following order is passed:- The respondents shall examine the case of each petitioner individually and shall examine their entitlement to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, keeping in mind the judgment of this Court as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and any subsequent policy decision in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be undertaken within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.” 3.2 Upon such direction having been issued in Special Civil Application No.20494 of 2017 by order dated 26.04.2018, as referred above, by the impugned communication dated 06.08.2018, respondent No.4 – authority rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly, on the ground that the petitioner started working as a Labourer from June-2010 and from June – 2010 till 29/10/2010 (the date mentioned in the Resolution), the petitioner has not performed duty for more than 240 days in any of the years and as per the Resolution, this benefit is admissible to the daily-wagers who were working on daily wage rate as on 29/10/2010. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 06.08.2018 issued by the respondent authority, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court by preferring the present petition seeking the reliefs as referred above. 4. Notice came to be issued on 06.12.2018 wherein, the service condition of the petitioner was directed not to be varied to the petitioner’s detriment. 4.1 Pending the present petition, the petitioner came to be orally terminated in view thereof, the petitioner by way of draft amendment, has challenged the impugned communication dated 16.05.2019 and has also prayed to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with all the consequential benefits including arrears of wages and continuity of service. 4.2 When the matter was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2024, following order came to be passed: “1. Heard Ms. Shikha Panchal, learned advocate for Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by Ms. Panchal, learned advocate that, this is the 2nd round of litigation. 4.2 When the matter was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2024, following order came to be passed: “1. Heard Ms. Shikha Panchal, learned advocate for Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by Ms. Panchal, learned advocate that, this is the 2nd round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No. 20494 of 2017, wherein, by order dated 26.04.2018, the respondent authorities were directed to examine the case of the petitioner with respect to the entitlement of the benefits of the government resolution dated 17.10.1988, in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v/s. PWD Employees’ Union, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 . It is submitted that, pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities by communication dated 06.08.2018 declined the representation of the petitioner, on the ground that, on perusal of the record, the petitioner herein has worked as daily wager from June, 2010 to 29.10.2010 and has not completed 240 days in a particular calendar year. Further, on 29.10.2010, petitioner has worked on piece-rated basis and in view thereof, the petitioner herein has not complied with the conditions as mentioned in the government resolution, and therefore, petitioner herein was not entitled for the said benefits. The aforesaid is the cause of action for preferring the present petition challenging the said communication. 3. While issuing Notice on 06.12.2018, it was directed that the service conditions of the petitioner shall not be varied to petitioner’s detriment. 4. It appears that, in spite of the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2018, the respondent authorities proceeded to orally terminated the petitioner by communication dated 16.05.2019, duly produced at Annexure-I (Pg.105), which came to be challenged by the petitioner, by way of draft amendment. 5. Ms. Panchal, learned advocate placed reliance on the order dated 22.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3966 of 2016, wherein, it is held that remuneration of the petitioner as a piece-rated worker would fall within the definition of term ‘wages’ as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The aforesaid was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench by the respondent – State being Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2021, which came to be dismissed by order dated 13.01.2021. The aforesaid was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench by the respondent – State being Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2021, which came to be dismissed by order dated 13.01.2021. The said order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2021 was further challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Apex Court being Special leave to Appeal (C) No. 12097 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 04.02.2022. 6. Ms. Panchal, learned advocate placing reliance on the aforesaid, submitted that the issue in question with respect to piece-rated worker, in view thereof has attained finality. Reliance is also placed on the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 7638 of 2016 dated 18.04.2024, whereby, the oral termination of the employees in the said case, came to be set aside and the employees were directed to be reinstated in service alongwith the further directions as observed in the said order. 7. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State requests for time. 8. At her request, post the matter for hearing on 21.08.2024 TO BE LISTED ON TOP OF THE BOARD.” 5. Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the order passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 dated 22.01.2020 and reiterated that the aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra wherein, the piece-rated worker would fall within the definition of the term “wages” as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is reiterated that the aforesaid was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench by the respondent - State wherein, the said order passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 dated 22.01.2020 stands confirmed. In view thereof, the petitioner herein being piece- rate employee, is required to be extended the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 in line with the ratio laid down in case of State of Gujarat vs. PWD Employees’ Union, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 . 6. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid legal position as relied upon by Ms. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner will be considered for grant of the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upon due verification. 7. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid legal position as relied upon by Ms. Raol, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner will be considered for grant of the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upon due verification. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was appointed on piece rate basis in the office of the respondent No.5 – Forest and Environment Department on 01.07.2010. By preferring the present petition, vide order dated 06.12.2018, the service conditions of the petitioner was directed not to be varied/disturbed to the detriment of the petitioner. In-spite of the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2018, pending the present petition, the petitioner was orally terminated by the respondent authority. Further, while considering the documents on record, by order dated 26.04.2018 in Special Civil Application No.20494 of 2017, the respondent authority was directed to examine the case of the petitioner for entitlement of the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 19.10.1988 keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In-spite of the aforesaid directions, the respondent authority declined to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 mainly, on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of work between June, 2010 to 29.10.2010 as also, the petitioner was a piece rate worker. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union & Ors., reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579 . Paragraphs 23 to 26 of the said decision read 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. Paragraphs 23 to 26 of the said decision read 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. (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. 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. 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. 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 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.” 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. 8.1 It is also apposite to refer to the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016, dated 22.01.2020. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the said decision read thus: “8. 8.1 It is also apposite to refer to the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016, dated 22.01.2020. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the said decision read thus: “8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent-State authority cannot neglect the actual days of working even of a piece rated worker by totally ignoring their work for which they are engaged. Thus, by adopting such a modus operandi, the respondent State- authority have, in fact, snatched away the status of the petitioner as a daily wager by converting the services from daily wager from 2001 to piece rated worker, resulting into denial of pension. It appears that the respondents has altered the status from daily wager to piece rated worker without informing her. Being a model employer it is expected that the respondent authority should inform their employees about the repercussion of their change of status from daily wager to piece rated worker as such alteration affects their future prospectus of pay, pension etc, which arise out the resolution dated 17.10.1988. The respondent-State authority cannot totally disregard his/her engagement as a piece rated worker by ignoring the days on which the work is assigned. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hareshbhai Bhurabhai Vala (supra), while considering the service of piece rated worker basis has observed thus; 11.2 However, other documents, more particularly the vouchers under which the respondent workman was paid by the petitioner board for period after July 1990 should be taken into account. It is noticed that several vouchers were placed on record before the learned Labour Court and said vouchers demonstrate that the petitioner board made payments to the respondent workman under and by way of those vouchers. The amounts paid to the respondent workman are of different quantum. Certain documents purporting to be the bills raised by the respondent workman are placed on record. However, on closer scrutiny, it comes out that any link or connection co-relation between the said bills and vouchers is not established. Besides this, mode of payment alone and that too in absence of the contract or letter of appointment/engagement cannot determine status and character of employment and the employee. 12. The petitioner board claims that after 28.7.1990, the respondent workman was engaged on contract basis and he was working as contractor and was executing the typing work on piece rate basis. Besides this, mode of payment alone and that too in absence of the contract or letter of appointment/engagement cannot determine status and character of employment and the employee. 12. The petitioner board claims that after 28.7.1990, the respondent workman was engaged on contract basis and he was working as contractor and was executing the typing work on piece rate basis. 12.1 The petitioner board claimed, through its witness, that when earlier existing contract came to an end, the petitioner board had made an inquiry and the rate quoted by the respondent workman was found to be lower than the rate quoted under the existing contract and that therefore, the decision to assign typing work on contract basis to the respondent workman was taken and accordingly, he was engaged on contract basis and thereafter, the respondent rendered his service for typing work on contract basis and he was paid on piece rate basis. 15. At this stage, it is appropriate to take into account the definition of the term "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of said term takes in its fold "any person who is employed to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,". When the said definition is taken into account, then, it emerges that the respondent herein was rendering skilled service as steno/typist and he was engaged for executing skilled work assigned to him by the petitioner. His services were availed in lieu of payment and remuneration for the service rendered by the respondent was paid to him by the petitioner. The definition also includes engagement or employment of a person even in case where the terms of employment are implied. Thus, in view of the definition and in light of facts of present case, more particularly in light of the fact that the respondent was engaged for "manual/skilled" work of similar nature for which he was engaged before 28.7.1990 the petitioner's submission that after 28.7.1990 the respondent herein was not a workman of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting the said defence or contention of the petitioner. 16. 16. It would also be appropriate to consider the said definition of the term "workman" along with the definition of the term "wages" as prescribed under Section 2(rr) of the Act. According to the said definition, "wages means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money which are paid on fulfilment of terms of employment, expressed or implied would be termed as "wages" but it would not include any bonus or contribution to provident fund or gratuity payable on termination of service. Thus, the amounts/remuneration paid to the respondent for the period after 28.7.1990 for the work executed by him would fall within the term "wages" and consequently, it would be "wages" paid to a "workman". Under the circumstances, the decision by the learned Labour Court treating the amount/remuneration paid to the respondent as wages and the recipient of the said wages as workman cannot be faulted. 9. Thus, the remuneration of the petitioner as a piece rated worker would fall within the definition of term “wages" as prescribed under of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ID, Act) and her remuneration as a piece rated worker is covered under the definition of wages as define under Section 2(rr) of the ID Act. The impugned order dated 02.11.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to confer the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner, as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of PWD Employees' Union & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 and subsequent judgment in the case of PWD and Forest Union and Ors, reported in 2019 (3) scale 462. Appropriate orders conferring the benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 shall be passed within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. 10. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute.” 8.2 It is further apposite to refer to the decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.83 of 2021, dated 13.01.2021, which reads thus: “We have heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants – State and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Aditi Raol, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule made absolute.” 8.2 It is further apposite to refer to the decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.83 of 2021, dated 13.01.2021, which reads thus: “We have heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants – State and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Aditi Raol, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned Single Judge, relying upon the material placed before the Court, has recorded in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the petitioner was appointed on 18.09.1989 as a daily wager and worked as such till 17.09.2000 i. e. for more than 10 years. However, thereafter, her status was changed and converted to the piece rated worker. Learned Single Judge further considered the said material on record and legal position with regard to the definition of wages and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and accordingly, quashed the order dated 02.11.2015 by which the benefits were denied. 3. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been able to show that the facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are incorrect or contrary to record. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel has referred to the relevant documents of the department according to which the facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are based. 4. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.” 8.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12097 of 2021 arising out of the Letters Patent Appeal No.83 of 2021, has held as under: “We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition, is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.” 8.4 It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.1684-1689 of 2019. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said decision read thus: “5. Thereafter, the appellant issued GR dated September 15, 2014 as a policy decision to extend the benefit of the aforesaid judgments. vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.1684-1689 of 2019. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said decision read thus: “5. Thereafter, the appellant issued GR dated September 15, 2014 as a policy decision to extend the benefit of the aforesaid judgments. The respondents herein filed another contempt petition submitting that this GR dated September 15, 2014 was not in conformity with earlier GR dated October 17, 1988 and, therefore, it amounted to contempt of the Court’s order as the appellant had failed to carry out the directions of the Court by not giving the benefits in terms of GR dated October 17, 1988. The High Court has accepted the contention of the respondents herein. In its detailed judgment dated June 14, 2018, though it has held that case for contempt was not made out, at the same time, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: "34. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as ordered by the Supreme Court in order dated 09.07.2013 passed in case of PWD Employees’ Union (supra) and as reiterated by the learned Single Judge in its order on 11.6.2015 in the proceeding of SCA 9814 of 2014 and examine the case of all the concerned in light thereof and without being influenced by their own Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014, as we have categorically held that Government (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. Resolution to be not in consonance with the Supreme Court order dated 09.07.2013 passed in case of PWD Employees’ Union (supra). The entire exercise shall be over within period of 60 days from the date of receipt of writ of the order. We dispose of this petition with aforesaid directions. Notice discharged in each matter. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 6. It may be noted that while giving the aforesaid directions, the order contains a detailed discussion to the effect that GR dated September 15, 2014 is deviation from earlier GR dated October 17, 1988 as per which the appellant was supposed to give the benefits to the respondents. 7. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 6. It may be noted that while giving the aforesaid directions, the order contains a detailed discussion to the effect that GR dated September 15, 2014 is deviation from earlier GR dated October 17, 1988 as per which the appellant was supposed to give the benefits to the respondents. 7. In challenging the aforesaid order of the High Court by way of present appeals, the contention of the appellant is that GR dated September 15, 2014 was in fact issued to implement the judgment of the court in letter and spirit. The case set up by the appellant is that the Forest Department in the State Government, while extending the above benefits to all the daily wage workers of the Forest Department, and in order to maintain uniformity with regard to applicability of GR dated October 17, 1988 to daily wage workers working in different divisions/Districts of the Forest Department of the State, issued a GR dated September 15, 2014. The said Resolution is based on GR dated October 17, 1988 and subsequent Resolutions. The reliefs granted by this Court have (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. been extended to nearly 58000 workers. The judgment of this Court as directed above has been substantially complied with. As per the appellant, the Forest Department of the State has followed the interpretation of core GR dated October 17, 1988 as revised and clarified from time to time and has come up with the GR dated September 15, 2014 with the assistance of the Road and Building Department of the State.” 9. Considering the facts of the present case which are undisputed, the position of law as referred above, the prayers, as prayed for, by the petitioner seeking the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is required to be considered. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 06.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside, considering the ratio laid down in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 whereby, piece-rate employees are included in the definition of term “wages” and is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 06.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside, considering the ratio laid down in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 whereby, piece-rate employees are included in the definition of term “wages” and is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The petitioner herein is further directed to be reinstated to his original post with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of wages and continuity of service in line with the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7638 of 2016. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 16.05.2019 is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside. 9.1 The petitioner herein having been working in the Forest and Environment Department since last several years and having been appointed on piece rate basis in the office of the respondent No.5 on 01.07.2010, has been working with the respondents for more than 8 years now and in view thereof, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Accordingly, necessary benefits be extended in favour of the petitioner upon due verification; preferably, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to pay the amount within the aforesaid period, will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of registration of the petition i.e. 05.12.2018. 10. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.