JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. By an order dated 27.10.2021, this Court has passed the following order:

“1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ullash Gohil on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The petitioners, who were originally appointed as ad-hoc lecturers in various Government Colleges and Polytechnics, raise a grievance as regards non-clubbing of the period served by them as ad-hoc lecturers in the Institutions concerned after having been appointed on regular basis through selection process conducted by Gujarat Public Service Commission (‘GPSC’ for short).

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil draws the attention of this Court to the Government Resolution of the Education Department dated 3.8.2011, whereby in a similar situation, the respondent Department had clubbed the service of persons, who were originally appointed as ad-hoc lecturers and later on such persons having been selected through GPSC and the period as ad-hoc lecturers was directed to be considered along with the period on regular service for the purpose of leave, salary as well as pension. Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil would submit that since the parent Department of the present petitioners is an Education Department itself, there was no reason for the said Department not to take a similar step in case of the present petitioners. Mr. Gohil would also draw the attention of this Court to the Government Resolution dated 16.5.2021 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, whereby a similar aspect has been considered and the period of service as ad-hoc lecturers was directed to be clubbed with the service after such ad-hoc lecturers were selected through GPSC. Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil would submit that since the Department concerned are ultimately working for and on behalf of the State Government, the respondent Authorities may not be permitted by this Court to take diverse views on the same issues. Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil would emphasize on the fact that the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2011 was passed by the parent Department of the petitioners themselves. It appears that the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply where the issue of Resolution dated 3.8.2011 has not been touched upon.

4. In view of the above fact, the respondent No. 1, if required, in consultation with General Administrative Department (GAD) of the State Government shall take an appropriate decision with regard to the grievance raised by the present petitioners, more particularly keeping in view the fact that vide G.R. dated 3.8.2011, the said Department had taken a stand, which is the same stand as being requested to be taken by the petitioners herein. Outcome of the said consideration shall be placed on record of this Court by the next date of hearing i.e. 15.12.2021.”

2. It appears that thereafter, after consideration, the State Government by the decision under challenge has rejected the request of the petitioners for considering their ad-hoc services for the purposes of all benefits including selection grade etc.

3. Reading of the affidavit in reply by Mr. Kurven Desai learned AGP would indicate that recovery against the petitioners has been initiated in light of the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009, by which, continuity could not have been granted.

4. Accordingly, steps for rectification were taken. It is also pointed out in the affidavit in reply that the petitioners have given undertaking to the effect that if excess payment was made, it was open to recovery.

5. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 6907 of 2021, had considered the issue of clubbing ad-hoc services together with regular services post selection after undergoing the GPSC examinations and also with regard to the question of recovery and entitlement of AGP of Rs. 7,000/-. The order dated 04.04.2022 reads as under:

“1. By an order dated 02.03.2022, the grievances raised by the petitioner were set out. The order dated 02.03.2022 reads as under:

“1. Th