JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. This Court vide its order dated 27.04.2026 passed the following order:

“1. This matter was pending since 2019 and as per the say of the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, it is squarely covered by decision of learned Single Judge, confirmed by a Division Bench and also by Hon’ble Apex Court.

2. Today Mr.A.S.Asthavadi, learned advocate for some of the petitioners has filed a sick-note. Nonetheless, this Court has heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Jay Koshti, learned advocate for petitioner Nos.1 and 4, Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent State, Mr.Prashant Desai, learned Senior Advocate for Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.3, Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned advocate for respondent No.6, Mr.Ketul Patel, learned advocate for Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.5, Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent No.4 and Ms.K.J.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for respondent No.7. 3. The matter is kept for further hearing on 28.04.2026. List on the top of the board.

4. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, no leave-note or sick-note of any of the learned advocates for the parties will be entertained.”

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is reported to this Court that Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 & 5 - the Gujarat Urban Livelihood Mission as well as for the Nadiad Nagarpalika, respectively, is on sick note. Nonetheless, considering the request made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and in view of the aforesaid order, the matter is heard.

3. Heard Mr. Jay K. Koshti for Mr. K. R. Koshti, and Mr.Pruthviraj Solanki, learned Advocate for Mr. A. S. Asthavadi, learned advocates for the petitioners, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Ketul Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 & 5, Mr. Prashant Desai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent No.4, Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent No.6, and Ms. K.J. Brahmnhatt for the respondent No.7.

4. Before adverting to the issue germane to the matter, I would like to first refer the order of admission passed by this Court in this matter on 16.01.2019, which reads thus:

“In view of the statement of learned advocate Mr. A. S. Asthavadi for the petitioners that the facts of the case and the issue involved herein is similar to one involved in Special Civil Application No. 19872 of 2017 as well as Special Civil Application No. 15653 of 2018, there shall be Rule in this petition.

To be heard with the aforesaid petitions.

The respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the service conditions of the petitioners during the pendency of the petition.

Direct service is permitted.”

5. There was a conscious statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners that the facts of the present case are similar to Special Civil Application No. 19872 of 2017 as well as Special Civil Application No. 15653 of 2018 and the petitioners are similarly situated with the petitioners of those petitions. It further appears that as per the aforesaid order, this petition was required to be heard with the said petition, but not heard.

6. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the aforesaid writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 19872 of 2017 is already decided by learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 12.06.2025 along with other allied matters, whereby all the writ petitions were dismissed. It is also pointed out to this Court that the matters were carried before the Division Bench of this Court being Letters Paten