JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. At the outset Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 requests this Court to allow the respondent No. 2 to submit the reply on record.

2. Permission as prayed for extended. The affidavit-in- reply on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is taken on record in each matter.

3. Heard Mr. Hardik D. Muchhala, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2.

4. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 in respective writ petitions.

5. Since the issue germane to all these matters is common, at the request of the learned advocates for the respective parties, these petitions were heard and decided together by way of this common judgment.

SHORT FACTS:

6. By way of these petitions, the petitioners are praying and making request to this Court that the respondent authorities shall be directed to extend benefit of the Six Pay Commission from the date it was made applicable to the respondent – Nagarpalika (hereinafter referred to as the “Nagarpalika”) as well as requesting to extend relief of the higher pay scale and further direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners.

6.1. It is not in dispute between the parties that by way of an award passed by the Labour Court concerned in respective cases, it was ordered that the services of the petitioners, who were engaged as daily wagers by Nagarpalika, be made permanent. Accordingly, at the time of extending the benefits of the Fifth Pay Commission, such benefit was pass on to the petitioners.

6.2. So far as the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission is concerned, the Director of Municipality vide its order dated 06.04.2018 permitted the Nagarpalika to extend such benefits to its permanent employees wherein for a period between 01.01.2006 and 31.12.2010, it should be extended on notional basis and from 01.01.2011 onwards, the actual benefits of Sixth Pay Commission shall be paid.

6.3. As per one of the conditions stipulated in the said order, such benefit shall not be given to the employee who was appointed on the post which was not duly sanctioned by the State authority. Since the Nagarpalika did not obtain any prior permission of competent authority at the time of engaging the petitioners in its service, citing the aforesaid conditions, the Nagarpalika has not extended the benefits of Sixth Pay Commission to the petitioners.

6.4. It appears that upon receipt of the award passed by the Labour Court/High Court in the respective cases of the petitioners, vide communication dated 04.04.2011, the Nagarpalika sought guidance from Regional Commissioner of Municipality, Rajkot in connection with regularizing the services of the respective petitioners. I am informed by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the Nagarpalika that till date, no response is received from the Regional Commissioner in this regard.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

7. Mr. Muchhala, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that once the services of the petitioners came to be permanent by way of an award passed by Labour Court and in some cases confirmed by this Court as rejected the writ petitions filed by the Nagarpalika, they cannot be deprived from receipt of the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission.

7.1. It is submitted that in past, by extending benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission to all regular employees of the Nagarpalika, without any demurrer, the Nagarpalika extended such benefits to the petitioners. It is further submitted that similar treatment requires to be extended to the petitioners as given to other permanent employees of the Nagarpalika while extending the benefit of Six Pay Commission.

7.2. It is submitted that once the services of the petitioners being permanent by way of an award passed