JUDGMENT :

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondents to give him benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed on the vacant post by the respondents by calling applications and the petitioner was selected as a driver by conducting driving test and was appointed with effect from 21.07.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he was denied the benefit of time scale of pay and on demanding better conditions of service, he was terminated from service with effect from 30.11.1993. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court by way of filing Reference (L.C.A.) No.106 of 1994, which came to be allowed vide award dated 05.09.1997.

2.1 It is stated that since the respondents did not comply with the directions of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application for initiating contempt vide Misc. Civil Application No.956 of 1999 before this Court which was disposed of by the Court observing that the petitioner can file a fresh Special Civil Application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999 and prayed for extending the benefits of continuity of service to the petitioner as per award of the Labour Court and also for extending the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Court rejected the Special Civil Application holding that the respondents have complied with the award of the Labour Court and so far as grant of benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is concerned, it was observed that since the petitioner is employed after the year 1988, he would not be entitled to get the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1632 of 2005, which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.2005 observing that the petitioner shall have a liberty to approach the learned Single Judge by way of Review Application.

2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for review/recalling the order of the Single Judge being Misc. Application No.2579 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No.10505 of 1999. At the time of hearing of the application, the Court was of the opinion that so far the grievance of the petitioner for challenging the validity of Government Resolution is concerned, liberty was reserved in his favour to agitate the issue of claiming the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya has submitted that he is not pressing the present petition for prayer at Paragraph No.20-B, wherein the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been challenged.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Acharya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.07.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013 and allied matters (in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. PWD Employees Union).

3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Acharya has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors., 2019 (3) SCALE 642. Thus, he has submitted that the respondent may be directed to give the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raval has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefits since he was appointed after the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and hence, the said Resolution has no applicability to the daily wagers, who are appointed prior to issuance of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He has further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors. (supra) has laid down the parameters with regard to the applicability of the Resolution dated 17.