IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of granting regularization with retrospective effect to similarly situated workers and the requirement for equal treatment to all workers throughout the state.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. The Civil Application No. 339 of 2022, Civil Application No.3342 of 2022, Civil Application No.3334 of 2022, Civil Application No.3344 of 2022, Civil Application No.01 of 2022 for preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. F/30143, Civil Application No. 3352 of 2022, Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 for preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. F/31720, Civil Application No. 3335 of 2022, Civil Application No.3340 of 2022, Civil Application No.3338 of 2022, Civil Application No.3350 of 2022, Civil Application No.3351 of 2022, Civil Application No.3354 of 2022, Civil Application No. 3343 of 2022, Civil Application No.3332 of 2022, Civil Application No.3336 of 2022 for condonation of delay has been allowed. The delay preferred in filing the main matter is accordingly condoned.

2. The above noted Appeal is arising out of the common judgment and order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of Writ Petitions with the leading Special Civil Application No.8049 of 2022. As the issues raised in all the matters are common, we have heard all the Appeals together and they are being decided by this common order.

3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that it is recorded by the learned Single Judge that in the similar situation, for Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) and Female Health Workers engaged by various District Panchayats in the State of Gujarat, the matters have been decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6431 of 2022 vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2022, the extract of which has been noted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned.

4. We may further note that one of the matters decided vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 arising out of Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2019, relying upon the decision in the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, had been taken up for challenge by the State of Gujarat and others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.5663 of 2020. By the order dated 26.10.2020, the Apex Court has refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Perusal of the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, which was the basis of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 with allied matters vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2019 indicates that this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2016, had granted the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect, taking note of the fact that similar relief had been granted by the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the State Government in the case of similarly situated persons in Sabarkantha District. The State cannot discriminate with similarly situated persons of other districts.

5. Paragraph ‘35’ of the judgment and order 10.08.2016 has been extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge. We may note that the issue decided before the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 was with regard to the grant of benefit of regularization of service to the Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) in District Panchayat, Junagadh, on the premise that similarly situated persons in Rajkot and Sabarkantha District Panchayats had been given the benefit of regularization of service from the date of their initial appointment as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), with all consequential and incidental benefits. It was noted by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision dated 10.08.2016 that the petitioners therein, who were working as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), District Panchayat, Junagadh, had worked continuously for more than 10 years, even before interim orders were passed in their favour to continue in service.

6. It was opined that the petitioners therein ought to have been regularized as they have worked for several years. The action of the r