ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Ashlesha Patel has submitted that the issue is covered by catena of judgments of the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court. She has placed reliance on one of the judgments dated 21.12.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.18160 of 2016, which is confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 27.08.2021 passed in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No.35122 of 2019.

3. The present petitions have been filed for the following prayers:-

“18. A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or direction declaring the impugned action of respondents in not granting the benefit of 6th Pay Commission as well as merger of 50% of Dearness Allowance in the basic salary to the present petitioners as such benefits have been extended to the similarly situated employees which is discriminatory, illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violation of Article-14 & 16 of Constitution of India.

B. Your Lordship be pleased to direct respondents to extend the benefits of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 as per G.R. dated 24.08.2009 and 23.10.2009 issued by State Government and further direct to extend benefits of merger of 50% of Dearness Allowance in the basic salary from 01.04.2004 as per G.R. dated 08.10.2007 to the present petitioners with retrospective effect with 12% interest as such benefits have been extended to the similar situated employees.”

4. The prayers made in these petitions are required to be granted in view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 27.08.2021 passed in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal (stamp) No.35122 of 2019 and other allied matters. The Division Bench has decided group of appeals relating to the interpretation, implementation and benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which was initially made applicable to the Roads and Buildings Department of the State Government. The Division Bench bifurcated the group of appeals into four categories as under:

Group I :- Matters relating to Leave Encashment;

Group II:- Matters relating to the employees seeking benefits of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 14.11.2014;

Group III:- The appeals filed by the respondent-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge extending five benefits to the employees covered by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;

Group IV:- With regard to the employees, who have not been extended the five benefits by the learned Single Judge.

5. So far as the present petitions are concerned, the same would be squarely covered by the decision taken by the Division Bench in similar facts in appeals of Group II and III has held as under:

“20. Having considered the submissions, what falls for our consideration is the question that there were already two different classes of employees who were extended the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission from different dates. One category is of the employees appointed prior to 01.10.1988 who have been extended the benefit with effect from 01.01.2006 of the 6 th Pay Commission and the other category is of the employees engaged after 30.11.1994 who have been extended the benefit with effect from 14.11.2014. The appellants in the present set of appeals were appointed in between the two dates. They form a third category of employees. The extension of benefit from a particular date would be a policy decision and it was for the employer to decide the same. The present appellants therefore form a different class of having been engaged after 01.10.1988 but before 30.11.1994. They want parity and equal treatment with the employees engaged prior to 01.10.1988. When there is already a second class created which had been extended the benefit from 14.1