JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Ishaan Joshi for the petitioners, Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel and learned advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

“A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order the Respondents to reckon and give due weightage to the services rendered by the Petitioners on an ad hoc basis from January 2004 onwards for all purposes, including pay fixation, continuity of service, seniority, promotions, and retiral/terminal benefits, and consequently direct the Respondents to refix the pay of the Petitioners at the appropriate stage in the applicable pay scale with all consequential benefits, both monetary and otherwise; and

B. Pending admission, hearing, and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondents, to fix the pay of the Petitioners by treating their services as continuous from the date of initial appointment in 2004, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party; and

C. Be pleased to award cost of this petition;”

4. The short question arisen in this petition is that though the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis in the month of January 2004 and their services were regularized only in the year 2010, whether the petitioners’ services can be treated from January 2004 onwards or from the date of their regularization for the purposes of pay fixation, continuity of service, seniority, promotion and other retiral benefits as the respondents are considering the services of the petitioners for the above purposes from the date of their regularization i.e. from the year 2010.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Ishaan Joshi appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 19.2.2025 in the case of Vajiben Ranabhai Makdiya and others v. State of Gujarat and others, Special Civil Application No.1149 of 2023. He further submitted that the said decision was also confirmed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 24.4.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.603 of 2025 and, therefore, this Court may consider the services of the petitioner for the above purposes from the year January 2004 and not from the date of regularization i.e. in the year 2010.

At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Joshi clarifies that the petitioners are seeking to consider their services to be continuous from their initial date of appointment i.e. from January 2004 for the purpose of pay fixation, seniority, promotion and retiral/terminal benefits and it does not involve any aspect of any monetary benefits to be paid immediately except for the above notional benefits. He further states that in the case of Vajiben (Supra), the said case was also from the same District Panchayat and the date of appointment in the said case was also the same i.e. 29.1.2004 and her services were also regularized in the year 2010 and, therefore, the facts of the present case is identical to the facts of the case of Vajiben (Supra) and hence, this Court may also allow this petition by granting the same relief that was granted in the said case.

6. Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan appearing for the respective respondents could not dispute the aforesaid fact that the facts of the present petition is identical to the facts of the case of Vajiben (Supra) and hence, while opposing the presen