JUDGMENT : (Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) 1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, or writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, directing that the act of the respondent in not granting the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from initial date of joining and on completion of five years, ten years and 15 years from initial date of joining and not granting the benefits of the increment on the said fixation is illegal, improper, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (b) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from initial date of joining and on completion of five years, ten years and fifteen years from initial date of joining as also to grant the all the benefits and arrears till the date. (c) Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the respondent to pay the amount of difference of arrears as now the Ld. Labour Court has allowed the Reference and granted full Back wages and be further please to direct the respondent to pay 18% interest on belated payment of benefits of arrears under the resolution dated 17.10.1988. (d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition YOUR LORDSHIPS be please to direct the Respondent to start paying the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988. (f) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP appearing for the respondents. 4. The petitioner – Ashokkumar Muljibhai Rathod (deceased) was working with the respondent since 1981 and was terminated from service by oral order dated 07.07.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute being Reference (LCA) No.496/1991. The learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad on 12.01.2006 rejected the said reference on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete 240 days continuous service within the preceding 12 months. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner preferred Misc. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute being Reference (LCA) No.496/1991. The learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad on 12.01.2006 rejected the said reference on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete 240 days continuous service within the preceding 12 months. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner preferred Misc. Application No.96/2007 before the Labour Court to establish that the petitioner has already worked for 259.5 days in the preceding 12 months. However, the said application came to be rejected by order dated 13.05.2010. 4.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred Special Civil application No.13519 of 2010. By order dated 17.01.2014, the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.496/1991 and order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Application (for review) No.96/2007 were quashed and set aside and the remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to decide afresh. The learned Labour Court by order dated 21.08.2014 directed the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service but, without backwages. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Special Civil Application No.2573 of 2015 wherein, by order dated 01.03.2018, the matter came to be remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the issue of backwages afresh. The Labour Court by award and order dated 24.04.2018 allowed the Reference and directed the respondent to pay 100% backwages to the petitioner. The said award has attained finality. Earlier also, the Labour Court had directed to reinstate the petitioner however, the backwages were not granted. The petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.03.2015 and has a service period of more than 39 years. 5. In light of the aforesaid facts, Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner herein – Ashokkumar Muljibhai Rathod (deceased) is entitled to be granted the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 w.e.f. initial date of joining and upon completion of 5 years, 10 years and 15 years from the initial date of joining. Placing reliance on the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7101 of 2015 and allied matters, it is submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is identically placed seeking the same benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7101 of 2015 and allied matters. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is identically placed seeking the same benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7101 of 2015 and allied matters. 6. Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner herein would be governed by the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 and that, the case of the petitioner would be considered accordingly. It is also pointed out that an application under Section 33(c) of the Act is pending before the Labour Court. However, Ms. Motla, learned AGP, candidly submitted that the same is with respect to the backwages and the issue is independent in nature. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and the undisputed facts, as referred above, it is apposite to refer to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7101 of 2015 and allied matters dated 20.02.2022. Relevant Paragraphs of the said order read thus: “10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), wherein it has been observed thus:- “3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above.” Thus, the Supreme Court has enunciated that the continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) has also reiterated the principle of law. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) has also reiterated the principle of law. The same is as under:- "7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The appellant would be entitled to continuity of service." Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that once the reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court, the continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. 12. The issue with regard to denying the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground of non-completion of 240 days in similar facts is required to be considered in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017. The Division Bench has observed 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. 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 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.” 13. The Division Bench, while examining the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has held that once the termination of the respondent-workman is found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”), the effect of continuity of service is required to be conferred and the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be denied to him on the premise that he has not worked or completed 240 days. 14. It appears that since the petitioners were not granted the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.16477 of 2014, which was allowed by the order dated 15.11.2014 by observing thus: “9. In view of the above, the following order is passed: The respondents shall examine the cases of the petitioners individually and, if found eligible, shall extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to them, as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The needful be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.” 15. The Coordinate Bench had directed the respondents to examine the cases of the petitioners individually and if found eligible, it was directed that they shall be conferred with the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, as per the directions of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. PWD Employees Union, 2013 (8) SCALE 579 . Vs. PWD Employees Union, 2013 (8) SCALE 579 . Thereafter, by the impugned communication dated 12.03.2015, the Deputy Forest Conservator has rejected the case of the petitioners by observing that they are not entitled to any benefits in view of Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, as the petitioners were retrenched from service and accordingly retrenchment compensation was given to them. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the captioned writ petitions are filed by the petitioners. 16. Before I deal with the matter on merits, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned communication, wherein the reference has been placed upon Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, which has been issued, after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees Union (supra). The said resolution was also considered by the Apex Court in the subsequent decision rendered in the case of the same parties i.e. Gujarat and Ors. Vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union and Ors., 2019 (3) Scale 642 and the Apex Court has only clarified the implementation of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 by holding thus: “12. The appellant has, in the written submissions, generally accepted the position given above. However, the appellant has given this acceptance subject to following exceptions: (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr. (i) In the category mentioned at Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, every worker is not entitled to the pay scale mentioned by them as per GR dated October 17, 1988 or in the corresponding scale on October 29, 2010 because once they become permanent, they will have to be fitted in the job description in terms of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) as revised from time to time and not by Minimum Wages Act. Any anomaly within the same job description between people who have been regularly appointed and these workers of the respondent union would mean that everybody else will ask for it not only in this department, but other department of Government will have great difficulty in adhering to it. The pay scale mentioned in Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be applied across the board. (ii) The old Pension Scheme has been scrapped by the Government and Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme/New Pension Scheme (NPS) has been introduced with effect from April 01, 2005. The pay scale mentioned in Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be applied across the board. (ii) The old Pension Scheme has been scrapped by the Government and Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme/New Pension Scheme (NPS) has been introduced with effect from April 01, 2005. Therefore, CPF Scheme/NPS has been made applicable under the GR dated September 15, 2014, and the benefits of the same are being granted to the workers of the respondent union. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 43592 of 2018) & Anr.(iii) Similarly, the old General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme has been scrapped by the Government and CPF Scheme has been introduced with effect from April 01, 2005. Therefore, CPF Scheme has been made applicable, and the benefits of the same are being granted to the workers of the respondent union. (iv) The worker is given benefit of past services considering the earlier period on which he worked for more than 240 days in a year. (v) The GR dated October 17, 1988 provides for 14 days of casual leave including 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave. However, due to inadvertent translation errors, the judgment passed by this Court directed 14 days of casual leave in addition to 2 days of voluntary leave/optional leave. Therefore, the GR dated September 15, 2014 has incorporated the two days of voluntary leave/restricted leave and 12 days of casual leave which is applicable to all Government employees.” 17. Thus, in the subsequent Resolution dated 15.09.2014, earlier Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been clarified. The first illegality, which is committed by the Deputy Forest Conservator, is that despite the direction issued by this Court in the judgement dated 15.11.2014 in Special Civil Application No.16477 of 2014, to consider the case of the petitioners for conferring the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 in light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees Union (supra)(i.e. 2013 (8) SCALE 579 ), the claim of the petitioners has been denied by placing reliance on the subsequent Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014. Such approach of the respondent authorities requires to be highly condemned. It was not open for the respondent authority to deny the claim by misinterpreting the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, when the directions issued by this Court was to consider the case as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 18. Such approach of the respondent authorities requires to be highly condemned. It was not open for the respondent authority to deny the claim by misinterpreting the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, when the directions issued by this Court was to consider the case as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 18. Second illegality and perversity, which is committed by the Deputy Forest Conservator in denying the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is that he has referred to the retrenchment of the petitioners, which was done in past and was subsequently set aside by the Labour Court, Dahod vide award dated 29.08.2012, whereby the respondent authority was directed to reinstate the petitioners in service and accordingly, they were reinstated, without back wages. 19. Thus, once the retrenchment of the petitioners was set aside and subsequently, they were reinstated, it was not open for the Deputy Forest Conservator to again exhume the issue of reinstatement for denying the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. From the tenor of the order, it is reflected that the respondent authority is hell-bent to deny the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners at any cost despite the directions issued by this Court in the judgement dated 15.11.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.16477 of 2014 by referring to the irrelevant reasons as narrated in the order. All the petitioners, who have been working from last 30 years, have been waiting to get their fruits of the award, which was passed in the year 2012. They are again constrained to approach this Court by filing the captioned writ petitions claiming the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It appears that impugned order is passed in flagrant disregard to the directions issued by this Court. 20. Thus, this is a fit case for imposition of an exemplary costs. Since due to the illegal and arbitrary action of the Deputy Forest Conservator, the daily wagers like the petitioners are again constrained to approach this Court, a costs of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the respondent-State in each of the petitions. The same shall be paid to each of the petitioners. The impugned communication dated 12.03.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-State authorities are directed to confer the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners. The same shall be paid to each of the petitioners. The impugned communication dated 12.03.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-State authorities are directed to confer the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners. Appropriate order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. If such benefits are not paid within the stipulated time, as directed by this Court the same shall carry further interest @ 9%. It is clarified that since the Labour Court has not granted the back wages for the intervening period, the same shall be treated as continuous and notional for computing the benefits arising from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and accordingly, the arrears shall also be paid. It will be open for the State Government to recover the amount of costs, which is imposed by this Court, from the concerned officer, who is at fault in passing such orders.” 8. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner (deceased) was working with the respondents since 1981 and was terminated from service by oral order dated 07.07.1990. The petitioner came to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.03.2015 by the award dated 21.08.2014 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.496/1991 and was posted at Devkar na Movada Nursery, Atarsumba Range, Kheda and thereafter, from 05.08.2015 at Nursery of RFO, Cha/0, Indroda Circle, Gandhinagar and was working with the respondent department as per the requirement of work. After reinstatement, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which have been granted to the identically placed employees. 9. The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra in view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7101 of 2015 and allied matters, dated 20.02.2022 wherein, it is held that once the Labour Court awards reinstatement in service, the services are required to be considered as continuous; it is not open for the respondent authority to deny the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 10. 10. In view of the facts, as referred above, the contentions raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7101 of 2015 and allied matters dated 20.02.2022, as referred above, this is a fit case to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allow the prayers as prayed for in the present petition. 11. The petitioner herein is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order upon due verification and in accordance with law. 11.1 Pending the present petition, the petitioner has expired and the legal heirs are brought on record and therefore, the benefits be extended to the legal heirs of the petitioner. 12. The present petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.