JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed praying for the following reliefs: “24..... (A) Your lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this application. (B) Your lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 17.09.2018 and direct the respondent authority to grant the benefit of continuity from 1984 as directed by the Hon'ble Labour Court, Rajkot, confirmed till Hon'ble Supreme Court, consequential pay revision forthwith. (C) Your lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent to grant all the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and consequential benefits. (D) Your lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent to forthwith extend the benefits of 6th and 7th pay commission by making necessary pay revision w.e.f. date of implementation. (E) Pending the hearing this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to comply with direction of the Hon'ble Labour Court, Rajkot, in award dated 29.11.2006 which is confirmed till Hon'ble Supreme Court, and grant the continuity of Service from 1984 and other consequential benefits; also comply with the direction given by the hon'ble division bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA 308 of 2016 and SCA 2115 of 2019. (F) Such other and further relief as may be fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (G) Award Cost of the Petition.” 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 2.1 The petitioner joined as a Daily Wager in the Irrigation Sub Division No. 1, Department of Narmada, Water Resource, Agricultural Department, State of Gujarat (hereinafter referred as to “the respondent”). It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.02.1998, the respondent terminated the service of the petitioner without any prior intimation or notice and without following due procedure of law as envisaged under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”). It is the case of the petitioner that the termination was an oral termination dehors the provisions of the Act. Being aggrieved by the action undertaken by the respondent, the petitioner initiated a dispute before the competent authority, which culminated into a Reference before the Labour Court, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) bearing Reference L.C.R. No. 401 of 1998. Being aggrieved by the action undertaken by the respondent, the petitioner initiated a dispute before the competent authority, which culminated into a Reference before the Labour Court, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) bearing Reference L.C.R. No. 401 of 1998. The statement of claim as well as written statement came to be filed by respective parties and evidence was led. The Labour Court after considering as well as perusing the material on record, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity but without back-wages by way of an award dated 29.11.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that there is a categorical observation made by the Labour Court that petitioner was working with the respondent since 01.01.1984. Such observations are accepted by the respondent. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the award and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court in Reference L.C.R. No. 401 of 1998, the respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 1684 of 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the present petitioner came to be reinstated on 25.09.2007. The writ petition was finally heard on 09.01.2013. This Court vide order dated 09.01.2013 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and confirmed the award and order passed by the Labour Court in Reference L.C.R. No. 401 of 1998. Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1684 of 2007, the respondent approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition. The petition came to be numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11650 to 11659 of 2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.07.2013 dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even the State Government had communicated to the Superintendent Engineer of the respondent Department for accepting the decision and granting the benefits as per the direction given in the judgment and award by learned Labour Court which came to be confirmed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the communication made by the State Government, pay fixation was done in pay-scale of 3050-75-3950-80-4590 by way of order dated 27.08.2014 in accordance to 5th pay commission. However, continuity was not given from 01.01.1984, though specifically awarded by the Labour Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that not only the continuity, but the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were not extended to the petitioner. Such action of the respondent led the petitioner to make several representations, which were not answered by the respondent. Such action of the respondent culminated into the petitioner preferring a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 10876 of 2018. By way of an oral dated 03.08.2018, this Court had directed the respondent to take note of the earlier orders and judgment and passed appropriate orders. Pursuant to the direction made by this Court, the respondent by way of the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 rejected the claim of continuity of the petitioner. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has acted contrary to the direction given by the Labour Court which was confirmed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 17.09.2018, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, which is, according to the petitioner, third round of litigation. The writ petition was initially allowed by way of order dated 17.01.2022, however, the respondent had filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 pointing out the fact that the birth date of the petitioner is 16.12.1972. It was the case of the respondent that the birth date of the petitioner was 16.12.1972 then the petitioner could not have been appointed as a daily wager on 01.01.1984. This Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 recalled the order passed by the present writ petition and posted for further hearing on the basis of affidavit filed by the respondent. 3. We have heard Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. This Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 recalled the order passed by the present writ petition and posted for further hearing on the basis of affidavit filed by the respondent. 3. We have heard Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. Goutam, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that after adjudication by the learned Labour Court, the award is confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Despite such orders, the respondent has not granted continuity which amounts to overreach the award and judgment of the learned Labour Court, which is confirmed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The continuity is granted only from 19.02.1998 without giving any justification or reasons. The respondent has not considered the award and judgment in its true spirit. Pursuant to the rejection of continuity on 19.02.1998, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 10876 of 2018. This Court by way of an order dated 03.08.2018, relegated the petitioner to the respondent authorities for grant continuity and other benefits from the year 1984. Again the respondent authorities did not consider the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court. The impugned order was passed in the second round, which was without application of mind and overreaching the judgment and award by the learned Labour Court, order of this Court as well as order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.1 Mr. Goutam, learned advocate further submitted that there is no denial by the respondent in the defence statement before the learned Labour Court with regard to work of the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the respondent has accepted that the petitioner was working since 1984. It is further submitted that the learned Labour Court, at internal page 9 of the award, has categorically observed that the petitioner was working since 1984. Therefore, the factual aspect that the petitioner was working with the respondent since 1984 has attained finality. Therefore, the respondent cannot take a contention that the petitioner was reinstated after 1998 and therefore, continuity would be granted from 1998. The act of respondent is self contradictory. Therefore, the factual aspect that the petitioner was working with the respondent since 1984 has attained finality. Therefore, the respondent cannot take a contention that the petitioner was reinstated after 1998 and therefore, continuity would be granted from 1998. The act of respondent is self contradictory. On one hand, by way of communication dated 13.09.2013, the Government has decided to accept the award of the learned Labour Court while on other hand the respondent is not extending the benefit of continuity and consequential benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is without application of mind. 4.2 It is further submitted by Mr. Goutam, learned advocate that impugned communication dated 17.09.2018, does not deal with direction of the learned Labour Court, the order passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the action of respondent authorities is completely mala fide. However, it has been categorically accepted by Mr. Goutam, learned advocate that as the issue of birth date is raised in the present petition, the petitioner has made a categorical assertion that he is ready and willing to accept the continuity from the year 1990. It was submitted that the litigation is going on since the year 1994. During the pendency of litigation for almost 25 years, the issue of birth date of petitioner was never raised before any of the authorities or the competent courts. However, for the first time, the issue of birth date is raised in the present petition. However, to put the controversy at rest, the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the benefits of continuity and other consequential benefit from the year 1990 instead of 1984. 5. Per contra, Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and has contended that it is true that the order passed by the Labour Court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it was submitted that the respondent has placed the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner on record which clearly indicates that the birth date of the petitioner is 16.12.1972. This aspect is not controverted by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner could not have been employed as a daily wager on 01.01.1984. This is only contention made by Mr. Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for not granting the benefits of continuity to the present petitioner. 6. This aspect is not controverted by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner could not have been employed as a daily wager on 01.01.1984. This is only contention made by Mr. Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for not granting the benefits of continuity to the present petitioner. 6. Before making observation on merits of the matter, it needs to be perused that an additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that he is ready and willing to have the benefits of continuity from 17.12.1990, i.e. after completion of 18 years as per the School Leaving Certificate. However, before making any observation, on such aspect, certain factual aspects are required to be perused for adjudicating the controversy in question. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was employed as a daily wager by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the termination in 1998 by the respondent vis-a-vis the petitioner and other daily wagers were termed as illegal. This aspect was confirmed by orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme court. Therefore, one aspect is not in dispute that the termination of the petitioner was bad in law. As a matter of fact, even the benefit of 5th pay commission and further benefits were granted to the petitioner on basis of such orders. It is not in dispute that continuity was granted by Labour Court which was challenged till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which has not been disturbed. The respondent has not brought on record any factual aspect before this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the earlier round of litigation to indicate that continuity should not be granted to the petitioner. The order of continuity passed in favour of the petitioner is not disturbed, even in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Further, even in the order dated 17.09.2018, the ground of rejection of continuity is not viz-a-viz the birth date of the petitioner as per the School Leaving Certificate. The aspect of birth date being 16.12.1972 is raised solely in the present writ petition and particularly by the respondent at a very belated stage and in particularly after filing the affidavit-in-reply. Further, even in the order dated 17.09.2018, the ground of rejection of continuity is not viz-a-viz the birth date of the petitioner as per the School Leaving Certificate. The aspect of birth date being 16.12.1972 is raised solely in the present writ petition and particularly by the respondent at a very belated stage and in particularly after filing the affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, the cornerstone of the controversy would be whether it is permissible for the respondent on the basis of factual aspect brought after 30 years to modify the relief granted by Labour Court which is confirmed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent has not filed any application for modification of any order before any Court of law in the earlier two round of litigation. Therefore, by bringing the factual aspect of birth date of petitioner, the respondent authority is trying to resist the directions which are required by them to comply. At the same time, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not controverted his birth date on 16.12.1972. However, such aspect brought on record by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply cannot be a platform to grant any relief to the respondents without any modification application preferred by them. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case and in order to balance the equity, it would be appropriate to grant continuity to the petitioner from 17.12.1990 instead of 01.01.1984. To exceed to this aspect, the petitioner has already filed an additional affidavit requesting him to grant benefit of continuity from 17.12.1990. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, when the order passed by the Labour Court is confirmed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents are directed to grant continuity of service and other consequential benefits. However, such benefit would flow from only 17.12.1990. 10. Resultantly, the communication dated 17.09.2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents authorities shall grant continuity from 17.12.1990, given effect to the same and given consequential benefits to the petitioner within FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. In wake of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.