The entitlement to continuity of service and benefits as per the Labour Court's award and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants- original respondents wherein the appellants have challenged the order dated 23.02.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent- original petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms.Reena Kamani, learned advocate for the respondent.

3. Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellants mainly submits that the respondent-original petitioner was working with the appellants- original respondents since 30.06.1988 as a ‘Rojamdar’ Helper under the Deputy Executive Engineer, Surendranagar. It is submitted that the case of the respondent- original petitioner is that the services of the original petitioner came to be terminated with effect from 01.07.1992, and therefore, the original petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing Reference (LCF) No.97 of 1995. The Labour Court passed an award on 03.04.2006 whereby the original respondents were directed to reinstate the original petitioner without back wages. The original petitioner as well as the appellants- original respondents both challenged the said award by filing separate petitions before this Court. It is submitted that both the petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a common oral order dated 12.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be reinstated as per the award passed by the Labour Court. On reinstatement, vide order dated 05.06.2017 the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per the 5th Pay Commission were given to the original petitioner. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that once again on 18.07.2017, the original respondents granted certain benefits to the original petitioner. A copy of the said order is placed on record at page 51 of the compilation.

4. At this stage, learned advocate for the appellants submits that thereafter the original petitioner filed the captioned petition before this Court, wherein the original petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents In not considering the initial date of appointment of the petitioner for granting the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 and not granting the pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without application of mind and in violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence, be pleased to direct the respondents to treat petitioner's appointment as 30.06.1988 instead of 15.9:2006 and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner with 12% interest.

(B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the pay of the petitioner is wrongly fixed in the pay scale as per the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation instead of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation and hence, be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as per the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation from retrospective date and pay the arrears of the petitioner with 12% interest.

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to start paying the pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner forthwith by considering his date of appointment as 30.06.1988.

(D) Any other and further relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.”

5. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.02.2022, allowed the petition filed by the original petitioner and thereafter, directed the original respondents-appellants to confer the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment of the original petitioner after considering the continuity of service. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that the