The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the state to confer similar benefits to similarly situated persons as per previous court decisions.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the respondent State waives service of notice of rule.

2. So far as Special Civil Application No. 2767 of 2022 is concerned, the prayers are by the retired pensioners for the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 i.e. for counting their services from their initial date of appointment for the purposes of gratuity, pension and other terminal benefits. The other prayer therein is to grant higher pay-scale.

2.1 So far as Special Civil Application No. 3212 of 2022 is concerned, the prayers are once again for counting the services of the petitioners herein who also are retired employees from their initial date of appointment for the purposes of gratuity, pension and other terminal benefits. The other prayer is for grant of the benefits of public holidays, transport allowance, difference of 5th Pay Commission benefits from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1997 and leave encashment etc. Here too, they have prayed for the benefits of higher pay-scale.

2.2 The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 3381 of 2022 are dependents of the employees who died in harness and were beneficiaries of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 in addition to the five benefits as claimed by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 3212 of 2022. The petitioners herein have prayed for lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment in light of the resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 07.04.2016 of the State. Here too, the petitioners have prayed for higher pay-scale.

3. As far as the issue of the 5th Pay Commission ancillary benefits such as transport allowance, leave encashment, group insurance etc. prayed for in all these three petitions, the issue is covered by a decision of the co-ordinate bench of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003 on 20.08.2014 wherein this court set out each of the benefits and the orders by which the petitioners therein were covered. Relevant portion of the order reads as under :

“Having considered the affidavit-in-replies as also written submissions made by the State, it appears that the State is unable to distinguish this case from the facts of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). A bare look at Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) indicates that all the arguments raised by the State in the affidavit-in-reply as well as the written submissions are specifically addressed and answered by the Division Bench.

In such a scenario, it would be a sheer waste of time, money and energy for this Court to reinvest the said resources to address the issue identical to the one decided by the Division Bench of this Court. In such a context, this Court in V.A. Parekh Vs. State of Gujarat [2009 (5) GLR 3922] made following observations:

(1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and Tribunals in the State.

(2) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate Tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceeding of deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding.

(3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position in utter disregard of that position proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a willful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Further, this Court in SCA No.28470 of 2007 & allied matters, has made following observations in paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9:

6. In the opinion of this Court, once this Court settles the law, unless subsequently unse