JUDGMENT : (A.S. SUPEHIA, J.) 1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we have finally heard the matters today. Both, the Nagarpalika and the employees have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No.313 of 2025 is taken as a lead matter with consent of the learned advocates. 3. Admit. Learned advocates waive service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respective respondents. 4. The present appeals emanate from the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2024 in the captioned writ petition, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the Nagarpalika, modified the award dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.111 of 2000 to the extent that instead of regularizing the service of respondent Nos.4 and 5, they are entitled to get the similar benefits, as contained in paragraph No.12 and 13 of the judgement dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1036 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No.963 of 2016 and allied matters. Thus, both, the Nagarpalika as well as its employees are aggrieved by such order. 5. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Pahwa appearing for the Nagarpalika has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in modifying the award of the Tribunal since the employees were not working on the post, on which the Tribunal has ordered regularization. She has referred to the appointment orders and cross- examination of both the employees. It is submitted that their evidence specifically reveals that both of them were not actually working or appointed on the post, on which the Tribunal has ordered them to be regularized. While referring to the decision of the Division Bench dated 06.03.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1036 of 2016, she has submitted that learned Single Judge fell in error in applying the same in the case of the respondents employees, who have not actually worked on the posts, on which they are ordered to be regularized by the Tribunal. It is thus, submitted that such directions issued by learned Single Judge will also not apply in the case of the respondents. 6. It is thus, submitted that such directions issued by learned Single Judge will also not apply in the case of the respondents. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt appearing for the respondents-employees has submitted that learned Single Judge fell in error in modifying the aforesaid award as the respondents-employees, who are working for more than 20 years, are entitled to be regularized in service on the post, on which they are working. It is submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal was not required to be interfered with as the same is precisely passed, after appreciating oral as well as the documentary evidence. He has referred to the appointment order of respondent No.4 and has submitted that right from the beginning, he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist and he was also assigned such duties. Thus, he is entitled to be regularized on the said post. In case of respondent No.5, it is submitted that he was also assigned the duties of Surveyor and hence, the Tribunal was justified in regularizing his service. 7. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the evidence on record. 8. The learned Single Judge, after examining the award dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal, has issued the following directions: “13. Hence, the impugned award dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribual, Bhavnagar, in Reference (I.T.) No. 111 of 2020 is hereby modified to the extent that instead of regularization of the service, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Ghanshyam B. Bharad and Hitesh H. Trivedi are entitled to get the similar benefits as contained in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment dated 6.3.2018 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1036 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 963 of 2016 and allied matters.” 9. The respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the employees of the appellant - Nagarpalika raised the demand for regularization of their service. We have perused the demand made by them. The same is bereft of any Rules and Regulation/provision of law/Administrative instructions, under which they are claiming regularization on such post. On perusal of the demand made by the respondents dated 24.04.2001, it is noticed that both the employees being respondent Nos.4 and 5 have claimed to be regularized in service on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and Additional Surveyor respectively. The same is bereft of any Rules and Regulation/provision of law/Administrative instructions, under which they are claiming regularization on such post. On perusal of the demand made by the respondents dated 24.04.2001, it is noticed that both the employees being respondent Nos.4 and 5 have claimed to be regularized in service on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and Additional Surveyor respectively. The Tribunal accordingly, had directed the Nagarpalika to regularize the respondent No.4 on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and respondent No.5 on the post of Additional Surveyor. 10. We may at this stage, refer to the cross- examination of respondent No.5, wherein he has categorically admitted that he has never raised the demand of regularizing his service as Assistant Surveyor and the same is incorrect. He has admitted that he was appointed as a Daily Wager on 01.07.1992 in the Nagarpalika and he was working in the Board Department of the Nagarpalika. It is also admitted that there is no set up of the post of Assistant Surveyor in the Nagarpalika and he is not aware how set up is sanctioned. He does not have any evidence showing such set up. 11. At this stage, we may refer to the appointment order of respondent no.5 dated 19.05.1992 issued by the Chairman of the Nagarpalika. It is specifically mentioned therein that he is appointed as a Daily Wager to assist the Surveyor on 01.07.1992 and he is assigned such work on temporary basis. Further, the documentary evidence also reveals that he is not appointed as a Surveyor, but he was asked to assist the Surveyor. The last appointment order of respondent No.5 dated 13.07.2022 reveals that he is assigned the work in the Deputy Board of the Nagarpalika as an Assistant to Junior Town Planner. The wage slips of respondent No.5 of September, 2024 reveals that he is serving as Assistant Clerk in the Nagarpalika. Thus, there is no documentary evidence produced on record either before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge, which would establish that respondent No.5 was serving on the post of Assistant Surveyor or Surveyor and hence, the Tribunal fell in error in directing the Nagarpalika to regularize his service. In absence of any work assigned to respondent No.5 on the post of Surveyor, the Nagarpalika cannot be directed to regularize him on such post, which can be filled in by a person have requisite qualification. 12. In absence of any work assigned to respondent No.5 on the post of Surveyor, the Nagarpalika cannot be directed to regularize him on such post, which can be filled in by a person have requisite qualification. 12. So far as the case of respondent No.4 is concerned, the Tribunal fell in error in directing the Nagarpalika for regularizing him on the post of General Clerk-cum-Typist. In his cross-examination, it is elicited from him that there is a set-up of Head Clerk and Additional Head clerk in the Nagarpalika. He was appointed in the year 1993. Further, documentary evidence of respondent No.4, which was produced on record reveals that as per Resolution No.159, which was passed by the Nagarpalika on 07.01.1993, he was appointed as a Daily Wager in the General Administration Department for 3 months. He made a representation on 18.02.2000 pointing out that he is serving as Typist since long and he may be regularized in service. The Administrative Committee of the Nagarpalika passed the Resolution No.9 noticing that he is serving as Typist and his wages were accordingly increased from 01.02.2000. 13. The set up of Nagarpalika, which is produced on record as on 30.09.2019, establishes that there is one post of General Clerk-cum-Typist available in the set-up of the Nagarpalika and qualification required to be appointed on such post is Graduate and 5 years of experience along with passing of CCC examination. The post is required to be filled-in from the post of Clerk and as per seniority and seniority-cum-merits. The wage-slip of respondent no.4 of July, 2019 mentions that he was serving as Assistant Clerk in the Nagarpalika. The order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Chief Officer, Mahuva Nagarpalika, wherein it is mentioned that he is serving as assistant to the Junior Town Planner. On 20.05.2023, respondent No.4 was assigned in the Computer Department. The wage-slip of September, 2024 mentions that he has been assigned the work of Assistant Clerk in the Nagarpalika. 14. Thus, the documentary evidence does not in any manner confirm that respondent No.4 has ever worked on the post of General Clerk-cum-Typist, which is required to be filled-in as per the regulations of Nagarpalika. 15. Hence, we do find that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has misdirected himself in passing the award by directing the regularization of service on such posts, on which the respondents were neither appointed nor they worked. 15. Hence, we do find that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has misdirected himself in passing the award by directing the regularization of service on such posts, on which the respondents were neither appointed nor they worked. 16. The learned Single Judge, while modifying the award, has placed reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench dated 06.03.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1036 of 2016. The Division Bench in cases of regularization of Daily Wagers (Class-IV) employees of the present Mahuva Nagarpalika, after examining various awards of the Tribunal, has ultimately issued the following directions “13. Taking into consideration the fact that it has come on record that the respondents are working with the Municipality for more than two decades and that the establishment containing various clerical posts and other cadres was sanctioned as early as in the year 1973 and in view of divergent activities in the field of public services and considering the administrative set up as on date it will be open for the municipality to forward a proposal to the competent authority by providing details about requirement of personnel in various departments of the municipality. As and when such set up is approved by the competent authority, claim of respondents – employees based on their experience and qualification together can be considered for their claim towards permanency in regular set up of municipality keeping in mind the seniority of other employees also. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly. The appeals are partly allowed with the aforesaid directions.” 17. It is informed to us by learned advocate Ms.Pahwa, which is not denied by learned advocate Mr.Bhatt, that thereafter, the Nagarpalika had sent a proposal to the State Government, which is subsequently rejected by the State Government. Hence, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge were uncalled for. Even if it presumed that the aforesaid directions are made applicable to the respondents, then also they cannot be regularized on the posts on which they have never worked. Such discretion lies with the Nagarpalika, and they cannot be compelled to regularize the respondents de hors the eligibility prescribed under their Rules/ Regulations-Resolutions. The aforesaid aspects were required to be examined by the learned Single Judge, before issuing the aforementioned directions. 18. Such discretion lies with the Nagarpalika, and they cannot be compelled to regularize the respondents de hors the eligibility prescribed under their Rules/ Regulations-Resolutions. The aforesaid aspects were required to be examined by the learned Single Judge, before issuing the aforementioned directions. 18. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, and the award dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.111 of 2000 are quashed and set aside. However, since a statement is made on behalf of the Nagarpalika in the Memo of the Letters Patent Appeal as well as before us, upon instructions, by learned advocate Ms.Pahwa that the Nagarpalika is ready and willing to give the benefit of minimum pay-scale, to that of cadre of Clerks to the respondent nos.4 to 5, we are issuing the directions accordingly. Though were are quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and award, concurrently, in order to lay quietus to the dispute, we direct the Nagarpalika to fix and pay the minimum of the pay-scale, as mentioned in the Memo of the Appeal. In order to meet the ends of justice, and looking to the length of service of the respondent-employees, which is more than 30 years, we direct the Nagarpalika to accordingly, fix the pay of the respondents-employees from the date of the award of the Tribunal. The entire exercise of fixation of pay-scale, and the arrears shall be paid to respondent Nos.4 and 5 within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. 19. With these observations, the present appeals being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.436 of 2025 and 187 of 2025 filed by the employees are disposed of. 20. As a sequel, the connected civil applications also stand disposed of. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.