Point of law: Facts and the principles of law highlighted, render the inaction on part of the respondent authorities (a) in not extending the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners; (b) in not merging 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic salary with effect from 01st April, 2004 and (c) in not granting the benefits of allowances (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession as part of permanency benefits though the benefit of permanency is granted to the petitioners under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, as violative of petitioners' rights under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. This discrimination has to be finally smothered by granting the relief.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Pradip Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for the respective respondents.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. learned advocate Mr.Pradip Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. These petitions are filed on identical issue and therefore the same were heard analogously.

3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing today. For sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.15110 of 2020 is treated as lead case.

4. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

(i) to hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not making payment of full pensionary benefits to the petitioners by counting entire length of service from date of joining till date of retirement as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pension of the petitioners by counting entire length of service;

(ii) to hold and declare that petitioners are entitled to all other retiral benefits including Gratuity, benefit of leave encashment and be pleased to further direct the respondents to pay amount of leave encashment of leave standing in the account of the husbands of the petitioners;

(iii) to direct the respondents to pay difference of pensionary benefits, gratuity amount and leave encashment with 18% interest from the date when it fell due;

(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately re-fix the pension of the petitioners on the basis of the total length of service put in by them;

(C) Any other and further relief of reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.”

5.1. The briefs of the case are that the petitioners were serving as daily wagers in the office of the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer, Panchayat (R&B) Division since 1985 and 1981 respectively. The petitioners have served respondent No.2 uninterruptedly and continuously as provided under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5.2. The petitioners were also given the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and thereafter they were made permanent.

5.3. The petitioners were retired from service with effect from 30.06.2012 and 31.08.2019 after serving for more than 27 years and 38 years respectively.

5.4. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have never abandoned the work, they were always ready and willing to work and it was not the fault of the petitioners that for some occasion the work was not provided by the respondent No.2.

5.5. The petitioners have raised the grievance that only meager amount of pension and gratuity amount is paid to the petitioners without considering the services rendered by the petitioners as daily wagers for the purpose of pension, gratuity and leave encashement.

5.6. The petitioners have therefore preferred this petition to consider the services rendered by the petitioners as daily wager for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioners therefore made representation before the respondent authorities on 10.09.2020 through their Union however, such representation was not considered by the respondent authorities.

5.7. The details w