JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Anuradha Rathod for Mr. G.K. Rathod for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the various decisions of this Court. One of such decision is dated 20th September, 2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15699 of 2019.

1.1. She has submitted that the benefits of 6th Pay Commission is denied to the petitioner only on the ground that he was appointed after 17th October, 1988 in view of the cut off date, provided in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

1.2. She has submitted that the issue was considered by this Court in another petition, wherein this Court has held that the benefits of 6th Pay Commission cannot be denied to the employees on the basis of cutoff date and hence the respondents were directed to take decision and to pay such benefits within 10 weeks.

2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ishan Joshi appearing for respondent-State has submitted that the impugned communication dated 4th July, 2011 cannot be set aside since the petitioners are appointed after the cut off date i.e. 1st October, 1988 and hence he is not entitled for 6th Pay Commission since no G.P.F. account was open in his name.

3. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed with the respondent department on 21st August, 1989 and after completion of 10 years of continuous services, the petitioner was put in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-12-870-14940 with effect from 1st January, 2001 and the entry was made to that effect in his Service Book. The petitioner has made various representations to the respondent authorities to confer the benefits of 6th Pay Commission. However, vide impugned communications dated 4th July, 2011, 22nd July, 2011 and 10th October, 2011, such benefit is denied to the petitioner in view of the cut off date, provided in the resolution dated 17th October, 1988

4. The Coordinate Bench in Judgment dated 20th September, 2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15699 of 2019 after considering the analogous issue referred to herein above, has directed the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of 6th Pay Commission by holding that the decision of the respondent authorities to deny such benefits on the ground of cut off date is in valid in eye the of law.

5. The Coordinate Bench has observed thus;-

"5. The identical issue arose in case of Kalubhai Nathubhai Sonegara (supra). What is discussed, observed and held in paragraphs 5.1 to paragraph 6 in decision in Kalubhai Nathubhai Sonegara (supra) directly applies to the present case. They are as under.

"5.1 In Patel Tarunkumar Shankarlal v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 12527 of 2013 with cognate petition, the petitioners were the employees of Gujarat Maritime Board who were workcharge employees appointed after 31st March, 1989. Their grievance was similar to one involved in the present petition and that they were not given benefits of 6th Pay Commission, although all the workcharge employees appointed prior to 31st March, 1989 were granted the benefits. While contesting the said petition, respondents relied on Circular dated 31st March, 1989 of the Road & Building Department adopted by it, which was in connection with the State Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and according to the said Circular, conversion from daily wagers to workcharge was restricted after 31st March, 1989 and appointment of daily wagers was prohibited. Raising the said cutoff date, those petitioners were denied the benefits of 6th Pay Commission that they were appointed after the said date. The direction was prayed before the Court for grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits. The said petition came to be allowed by judgment dated 06th August, 2015. Learned Single Judge observed that it was incomprehensible that after having extending the benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 1998 for the petitioners, 6th Pay Commission