JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. Since a common issue has been raised in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard and decided analogously by this common judgment and order.

2. In the present group of petitions, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 12.03.2015 passed by respondent No. 2. Further the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are also prayed.

3. All the petitioners were retrenched in the year 1997, which culminated into references being Reference Nos. 85 of 2008, 72 of 2008, 80 of 2008, 79 of 2008, 77 of 2008 respectively. By the common award dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Dahod the respondent authority was directed to reinstate the petitioners in service without back wages.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 however, since the same was not granted, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.16477 of 2014. By the judgment dated 15.11.2014, this Court directed the respondents to examine the case of the petitioners individually and if they are found eligible, extend the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to them. It appears that thereafter, by the impugned communication dated 12.03.2015, the claim of the petitioners for the benefits arising from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been rejected by stating that since the petitioners were retrenched/terminated from service, they are not entitled for the benefits arising from Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2014 issued by the Forest and Environment Department.

5. Learned advocate Mr. P.C. Chaudhari appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned communication is required to be rejected since the same is passed without any application of mind as the respondent authority has not even cared to consider the fact that the termination of the petitioners were already set aside and they were ordered to be reinstated in service and accordingly, as on today they are working. He has submitted that all the petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service since they were engaged as daily wagers in 1987. He has submitted that in fact in the impugned order, reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 however, this Court in the judgment dated 15.11.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16477 of 2014 had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He has further submitted that once the reinstatement is granted, the respondent authorities cannot ignore the continuity of service and hence, the benefit arising from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be denied. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petitions may be allowed.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by catena of judgments of the Division Bench as well as this Court. He has placed reliance on the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1268 of 2017, order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5211 of 2020, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 1776 and judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15074 of 2020. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD Employees Union & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 417 and in the case of The State of Gujarat v. PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors., 2019 (3) SCALE 642. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 492. He has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 28.12.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1567 of 2018 and allied matters and has submitted that the benefit