JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP waives service of rule for the State respondents.

1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.

2. Heard Mr.Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Pandya, learned AGP for the respondents, at length.

3. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:

(A) to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or writs or orders or directions.

(B) to quash and/or set aside Order Ann-D dt.20-09-12 to the extent of not granting benefit of Resolution dt.17-10-88 from 01-10-88 and also to quash and/or set aside Reply dt.01-06-18, Ann-H given by the Respondent No.2 and to direct the Respondents to give the benefit of Resolution dt.17-10-88, Ann-I to the Petitioner with effect from 01-10-88 notionally up to 15-11-06 (with revised pay scale) and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to give difference of salary from 16-11-06 to 31-05-13 (with revised of pay scale).

(C) to direct the Respondents to pay Pension from 01-06-13 and Gratuity for 34 years service and leave encashment of 300 days to the Petitioner with 12% interest from 01-06-13 till its realization.

4. At the outset, Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would state that issue germane in the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 06.02.2026 passed in Special Civil Application No.12534 of 2018 (in the case of Galalben Laxmanbhai Makwana vs. Joint Secretary and another), confirmed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 02.04.2026 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.279 of 2026, whereby, similarly situated persons like the petitioner, given benefits, as prayed in this present petition.

5. Since the aforesaid facts and the judgments / orders passed by this Court, confirmed by the Division Bench, are not disputed by the learned AGP appearing for the respondents, it needs not to discuss in detail the facts, when this Court also incline to pass similar such judgment / order in this matter, but only few facts require to be observed, which are as follows:

5.1 The petitioner was appointed as daily wager with respondent in the year 1978, whose services were terminated abruptly by respondent along with other on 01.06.1992. So, petitioner along with other raised Industrial Dispute being Reference Case (LCS) No.112 of 1995, which came to be decided by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in favour of petitioner, vide its judgment and award dated 15.11.2006, whereby petitioner and other similarly situated have been ordered to reinstate them in their respective services.

5.2 The aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court came to be challenged by the respondent concerned before this Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos.19619 of 2007 and 19620 of 2007. This Court, vide its order dated 13.12.2007, dismissed the petition of the respondent.

5.3 Said order came to be challenged by the respondent concerned before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.8480 of 2008 and 8481 of 2008, whereby, the Hon’ble Apex Court had dismissed the petition of the respondent on 10.07.2008.

5.4 It further appears that previous service rendered by the petitioner was not taken into account when reinstated in the service, by way of impugned communication dated 20.09.2012, petitioner treated to have been in service only from 15.11.2006, i.e., when award was passed. The impugned decision/action of respondents is under challenge by the writ petitioner as according to him, it is not passed in consonance with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

5.5 As observed hereinabove, in case of other employees who also reinstated in the service as per the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, their writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12534 of 2018, came to be allowed by this Court vide jud