JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, matters are taken up for final hearing today as the issue involved in the present petitions are already covered by the decisions of this court.

2. The present petitions are filed challenging the impugned communication dated 17.09.2018 passed by the respondent authority. The petitioners pray for a direction to the respondent authority to grant the petitioners the benefit of continuity of service from 1984 as directed by the Labour Court, Rajkot and consequential pay revision.

3. Mr. Sapneshwar Gautam, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the present petitions is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this court in SCA No. 16979 of 2019. He places reliance on the decisions of this court rendered in SCA No. 6601 of 2016 dated 31.08.2018, SCA No. 7531 of 2018 dated 20.08.2019 and SCA No. 2811 of 2020 dated 31.01.2020.

4. This court in SCA No. 2811 of 2020 has considered the issue on hand and has passed the following order:

"1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent and request of the parties appearing through their respective learned advocates, the petition was taken up for final consideration today.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ishan Joshi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working with the respondent since 1991. His services were terminated with effect from 01.08.1999. Aggrieved by his order of termination, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed that the petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and 40% back-wages. The award of the Labour Court was passed on 05.05.2008. The challenge to the Labour Court's award failed as the petition was dismissed confirming the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and disturbing the award only qua back-wages. The petitioner was reinstated on 01.01.2013. The impugned orders rejecting the request of the petitioner for the benefit of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 is only on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was post 1988 i.e. in the year 1992. In case of a similarly situated petitioner of the same department, this Court by order dated 15.07.2019 passed in case of Chandulal Mohanbhai v. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 12120 of 2019 considered the question of granting the benefits of the resolution of 17.10.1988 in context of the stand of the department denying the same to such petitioner on the ground that he was appointed post 1988. The Court held as under:

"4.1 Thereafter followed the impugned order dated 11.10.2017, whereby the petitioner was denied the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The only ground mentioned for denial is that the petitioner's appointment was after 17.10.1988 and therefore the benefits cannot be liable to be extended.

5. The identical issue arose in case of Kalubhai Nathubhai Sonegara v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 2700 of 2016 decided on 30th November, 2017 by this Court. 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 appoi