JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by original respondent nos.3 and 4 assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10072 of 2021. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by respondent no. 1 – original petitioner was to pay forthwith the pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 read with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 read with Government Resolution dated 17.09.2004. It was further prayed to direct the respondents to grant benefits of higher grade pay-scale in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 read with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief to the extent that the pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits of the petitioner is to be counted on the same basis as was granted to the other similarly situated employee i.e. Mrs. Premilaben Patel. The learned Single Judge has also held that the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of higher pay-scale in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 read with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was further directed that all the benefits from his retirement shall be paid along with 6% interest from the date of his retirement. It was also observed that pension shall be paid from the date of his initial appointment. It was further observed that all the arrears was to be paid within ten days. Thus, it is this direction which is challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The factual matrix which has led to the filing of the present appeal is that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage on 01.08.1986. Thereafter, he was appointed as worked charge employee with the appellant. On completion of five years, the petitioner and other employees were granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Initially the petitioner was placed in fixed pay-scale. Thereafter, petitioner was granted regular pay-scale. It was the grievance of the petitioner and other employees that benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was wrongfully withdrawn. Therefore, petitioner and other employees preferred writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 21620 of 2007. Initially the petitioner was placed in fixed pay-scale. Thereafter, petitioner was granted regular pay-scale. It was the grievance of the petitioner and other employees that benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was wrongfully withdrawn. Therefore, petitioner and other employees preferred writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 21620 of 2007. Consequent to the filing of the writ petition, the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015, granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and other employees. The benefits which were granted to the petitioner were also granted to other employees namely Smt. Premilaben Patel and Mr. L.K. Parmar. 4.1. By way of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015, the benefit of higher pay-scale pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1984 was extended to the work charged employees of the Rural Housing and Rural Development Department (now Road & Building Department) since the said benefit was pursuant to the writ petitions preferred before this Court. Therefore, it was the case of petitioners that though they were extended benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, they will also be eligible for higher grade pay-scale as per Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015. 4.2. It is also not in dispute that one of the co-employee of petitioner, namely Mrs. Premilaben Patel, was not granted benefit as per Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 read with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that she was getting benefit of CPF scheme. Therefore, she preferred writ petition before this Court. Her petition came to be allowed vide order dated 30.01.2019 and against the said judgment, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2019. Therefore, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 were granted to one co-employee i.e. Mrs. Premilaben Patel on 31.01.2019 on her attaining the age of superannuation. 4.3. It is also not in dispute that one of the co-employee of petitioner, namely Mr. Chandrakant Hiralal Shah, was not granted benefit as per Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 read with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that he was getting benefit of CPF scheme. Therefore, he preferred writ petition before this Court. His petition came to be allowed vide order dated 23.09.2020 and against the said judgment, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2021. Therefore, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 were granted to one co-employee i.e. Mr. Therefore, he preferred writ petition before this Court. His petition came to be allowed vide order dated 23.09.2020 and against the said judgment, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2021. Therefore, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 were granted to one co-employee i.e. Mr. Chandrakant H. Shah on his attaining the age of superannuation. The said orders have attained finality. 4.4. When the petitioner was superannuated, the pension and other retirement benefits were refused on the ground that he had availed the benefit of CPF scheme. However, in that context, the writ petition was preferred before this Court on the ground that similarly situated employees who were given benefits of CPF scheme were also given benefits of Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 21.08.2015 on the ground that the similarly situated employees have been given same benefits. The learned Single Judge has also granted benefit of higher grade payscale pursuant to Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015. In this context, the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for respondent no. 1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and 5. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the petitioner was initially a daily wager and thereafter he was converted into work charged employee. The benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and other retirement benefits are already granted to him as he is similarly situated to Premilaben Patel and Mr. Chandrakant Shah. Therefore, the controversy which would remain is only qua payment of higher grade pay-scale. It was further submitted that the benefits of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 was granted to 54 employees on the basis of the writ petition preferred by that class of employees. Therefore, the said benefit would not be applicable to the present petitioner. In that context, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 cannot be conferred upon the petitioner. It is further argued that there are no reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for giving benefits of higher grade pay-scale. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Therefore, the said benefit would not be applicable to the present petitioner. In that context, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 cannot be conferred upon the petitioner. It is further argued that there are no reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for giving benefits of higher grade pay-scale. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has urged to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as the aspect of higher grade pay-scale is concerned. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has submitted that the benefits of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 were given to the employees on the basis of the writ petitions preferred before this Court. The said petitions were confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1360 of 2011 which order was carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17221 of 2012, where-under the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 05.10.2012 dismissed the SLP. Therefore, the petitioner was also required to be given benefits of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015. In this context, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has requested to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant. 8. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it transpires from the record that the retiral benefits as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is already granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the main controversy remains is as regards higher grade pay-scale as per Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015. The contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw is that the said Government Resolution is pursuant to the writ petition preferred before this Court and the benefit is granted to the work charged employees of the Road and Building Department which are 54 in numbers. Such Government Resolution was not beyond the litigants. If we peruse the Government Resolution closely, it appears that the benefits of higher grade pay-scale is granted to the petitioners as well as other members of the Association. Therefore, the intention to give benefit of higher grade pay-scale to work charged employee was in REM and not in PERSONAM. Even if we consider that the direction was to be given to the members of the employees and that can be considered as direction as per PERSONAM, but the overall intention was to grant benefit of higher grade pay-scale was in REM. Even if we consider that the direction was to be given to the members of the employees and that can be considered as direction as per PERSONAM, but the overall intention was to grant benefit of higher grade pay-scale was in REM. Therefore, the argument as canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that such benefit was only limited to such 54 litigants cannot be countenanced. 9. Be that as it may. The Government should be a model employer. The model employer is one who should not dismiss the claim of his employee on any technical ground. Once it is found that an employee is similarly situated to other employees, who has been given benefits flowing from the order of this Court, as well as Hon’ble Apex Court then, such similarly situated employees and the other employees should be granted same benefits. Such employees should not be driven to the Court for ventilating the grievance. Once the decision is taken by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court on particular point of controversy, then the authority is duty bound to provide such benefits to similarly situated employees. Therefore, the objection raised that the benefit is only given to those 54 work charged employees of Road and Building Department cannot be accepted. Hence, the appeal preferred by the appellant fails. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the benefits of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2015 shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, failing which the same shall be paid with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal lacks merits and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.