JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By an order dated 17.12.2020 in Special Civil Application No. 13078 of 2020, the petitioner had approached this Court for reliefs in accordance with the decision in the case of State of Gujarat and Another vs. Mahendra Kumar Bhagwandas and Another, 2011 (2) GLR 1290. The Court had by that order disposed of the petition. As far as the prayer in the present petition is concerned, directing the respondents to consider the representation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation. The State filed Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order which was dismissed. Even before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order was confirmed. On a contempt being filed, namely, Misc. Civil Application No. 506 of 2021, the Court on 17.11.2021 directed the respondents to decide the representation within a period of three weeks. Despite this orders, the respondents having taken a decision on the representation of the petitioners to extend them the benefits in light of the decision in the case of Executive Engineer Panchayat (Maa & M) Department and Another vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi and Others, 2017 (4) GLR 2952.

3. Reading the order dated 17.12.2020, it cannot be disputed that the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 are entitled to the benefits of the decision rendered in Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi (supra). The order read as under:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Amita Patel, the learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The petitioners were appointed as a Daily-wager and were granted the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on completion of five years of service. They retired from the service. The petitioners are drawing pension as on today. Their grievance redressed in this writ application is limited to the extent that they have not been granted the benefit of the Un-availed Privilege Leave of 300 days to their credit.

3. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioners that other employees who had approached this Court and obtained order in their favour, they are getting benefits of encashment but, the present petitioners are not given any benefits of leave encashment and the benefit is withheld arbitrarily.

4. I need not adjudicate this petition on merits since the issue raised in this writ application is squarely covered by a decision of this Court dated 20.08.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003 and a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of State of Gujarat and Another vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and Another, 2011 (2) GLR 1290. It appears that the learned single judge relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above. I may quote the relevant observations of the Division Bench as under:

“3. According to G.R. dated 17.10.1988, a committee under the Chairmanship of Honourable Minister, Shri Daulatbhai Parmar, was constituted to consider conditions of service of daily rated labourers and artisans employed in several departments of the State Government. That committee had submitted its report and it was resolved to accept recommendations of the committee and provide several benefits to the workmen concerned with effect from 1.10.1988. Those benefits included payment of minimum wages, paid weekly holidays, medical facility and national holidays. After completion of five years of continuous service in terms of provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such daily rated employees were to be entitled to fixed monthly salary of Rs. 750/- with dearness allowance prevalent from time to time and few more benefits of paid holidays and leave wages as well as membership of provident fund. It is stipulated in Clause 3 of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 that daily rated employees, who had completed, as on 1.10.1988, continuous