JUDGMENT : (Pranav Trivedi, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant - original petitioner assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4841 of 2014. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the appellant was to direct the respondent – authority to grant petitioner the pay-scale of permanent clerk as per the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (IT) No.57/1999 from the date on which the post had fallen vacant. It was further prayed to give directions to the respondent to grant regularization to the petitioner with retrospective effect. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was not entitled to the post as it was not filled in the sanctioned set-up of the Municipality. Therefore, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that in the absence of eventuality having been occurred and the conditions mentioned in the award of the Industrial Tribunal having been fulfilled, no right for the petitioner could accrue. It was only when any post on the set-up of Municipality was filled up by way of regular appointment, the petitioner's right could arise to be considered. Citing such observations, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 4. The background of the facts which has led to filing of writ petition before this Court is that the petitioner was working as Rojamdar Clerk in the establishment of the respondent Jetpur Municipality. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute for regularization of his services being Reference (IT) No. 57 of 1999. The Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot adjudicated the issue and by judgment and award dated 20.06.2005 held that the petitioner be given priority to recruit on the certain conditions and eventuality. It was a conditional award. The condition was that the petitioner was to be given priority for appointment on the basis of seniority, eligibility and experience and without breach of age limit, as and when a sanctioned post in the set-up of the Municipality was to be filled in and as and when, the post of permanent clerk was to be filled in. Therefore, the eventuality was that as and when the Municipality was to fill up the sanctioned posts, then only the petitioner’s case was liable to be considered. Therefore, the eventuality was that as and when the Municipality was to fill up the sanctioned posts, then only the petitioner’s case was liable to be considered. 4.1 It was the case of the petitioner that since the award was not implemented, he filed Special Civil Application before this Court. Such Special Civil Application which came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No.12107 of 2013. By way of order dated 01.08.2013, this Court directed that the petitioner shall file a detailed representation to the respondent. As and when the representation is filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent authority in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of four weeks from the date of representation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made representation, which came to be rejected by the Director of Municipalities as per order dated 15.11.2013. The petitioner's prayer through the representation was to absorb him as regular on the establishment of the Municipality. Such request was rejected by the Director of Municipality stating that the filling up of the post on the establishment could be done only after obtaining sanction and as per the recruitment procedure. Pursuant to such rejection, petitioner preferred a writ petition, namely, Special Civil Application No.4841 of 2014 wherein learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties rejected the petition of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra appearing for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 6. Learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the appellant - original petitioner had succeeded in the Industrial Tribunal by filing a reference. There was a specific direction given by the Tribunal and learned Single Judge ought to have considered the prayer of the petitioner for implementing the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. It was further contended that this Court, pursuant to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, had directed the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner. It was further contended that this Court, pursuant to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, had directed the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner. Even though there was a clear-cut direction given by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent had rejected the representation of the petitioner on flimsy grounds. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have considered the case of the petitioner. 6.1 It was further argued by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that in rejoinder affidavit, certain factual aspect was brought on record by the petitioner. The Rojamdar, who are junior to the petitioner, were considered for regular posts on basis of the award passed in Industrial Tribunal. Such award for different employees were challenged by the respondent Municipality before this Court. The award was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004 and other allied matters. Pursuant thereto, the Rojamdar who were junior to the petitioner were regularized in their posts. Therefore, this creates an absolute anomaly when the case of the petitioner is rejected whereas the case of other similarly situated people has been considered. Therefore, it was urged by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that the case of the appellant - original petitioner be considered and present Letters Patent Appeal be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi appearing for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the appeal. It was contended that the arguments as canvassed by the advocate for the appellant lack on merit, inasmuch as the conditions of the award passed in favour of the appellant - original petitioner viz a viz other similarly situated employee is totally different. There was a conditional order in favour of the appellant i.e. as and when the sanctioned post had to be filled, priority was given to the petitioner. There is a statement made at bar by learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for respondent No.2 that no such sanctioned post has been filled up as on today. 7.1 It was further argued that the case of other employees, as canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Mishra, is on totally different footing. In case of those employees, a clear-cut direction was given by the Industrial Tribunal to appoint the workmen to the post and pay all the benefits available to them. When such awards were challenged by the respondent before this Court then this Court had confirmed such awards. Mishra, is on totally different footing. In case of those employees, a clear-cut direction was given by the Industrial Tribunal to appoint the workmen to the post and pay all the benefits available to them. When such awards were challenged by the respondent before this Court then this Court had confirmed such awards. In such an eventuality, the respondent had abide by the direction given by the Industrial Tribunal and this Court and appoint the workman. Whereas in the present case, there was no clear direction given to appoint the workman. It was a conditional order, wherein if the sanctioned post were to be filled up, then present appellant was supposed to be given priority. Since such an exercise has not taken at all, the respondent was not at fault in not appointing the appellant. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi urged that the appeal is meritless and has requested to this Court to reject the appeal. 8. In background of these facts, for considering the issue involved in the appeal, one of the major issue is that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in the case of present appellant was a conditional order. It was directed by the Industrial Tribunal that as and when the sanctioned post had to be filled up, then the case of the appellant - original petitioner was to be considered. There is nothing on record or shown by the advocate for the appellant that there was an exercise to fill up the sanctioned post. Therefore, the respondent has not deviated from the condition imposed by the Industrial Tribunal. If the sanctioned post had to be filled up, then definitely the respondent ought to have abided and followed the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal. If such action has not taken place at all, then the respondent cannot be faulted with. 9. There is also another angle to the issue involved. The award was passed Industrial Tribunal way back in the year 2005, the appellant has not challenged the conditional award of the Industrial Tribunal. The original petitioner accepted the award as it is and worked in the set-up, accepted the direction. The first time controversy was raised by the appellant - original petitioner was in the year 2013. That is almost 8 years after the date of passing of the order. During such interregnum period, appellant had accepted the award. The original petitioner accepted the award as it is and worked in the set-up, accepted the direction. The first time controversy was raised by the appellant - original petitioner was in the year 2013. That is almost 8 years after the date of passing of the order. During such interregnum period, appellant had accepted the award. This fact goes against the appellant viz a viz prayers made in the petition. The third angle is the equating the award passed in the case of appellant in comparison to award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in other employees' cases. There was a specific direction given by the Industrial Tribunal to appoint other employees, whereas in the case of present appellant, there was a conditional direction. Such conditional direction has not been challenged by the appellant, the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Mishra regarding equity in the case of appellant compared to other employees fail. Therefore, the appeal fails on this aspect as well. Resultantly, we uphold the order passed by learned single Judge. 10. With the above mentioned observations, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal and the present Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.