Dabhi Arjanbhai Kurabhai vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16999 Guj

       C/SCA/2801/2020                              ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2801 of 2020
                                   With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3976 of 2020
                                   With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3495 of 2020
==========================================================
                     DABHI ARJANBHAI KURABHAI
                               Versus
             GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
==========================================================
Appearance:
NIYATI V VAISHNAV(6168) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the respondent-State
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                             Date : 28/10/2021

                          COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Niyati V. Vaishnav for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the respondent-Board in Special Civil Application No.2801 of 2020, learned Advocate Ms. Ashlesha Patel for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Rathod for the respondent-Board in Special Civil Application Nos.3976 of 2020 and 3495 of 2020 and learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent-State in all these matters.

2. At the outset, learned Advocate Ms. Niyati V. Vaishnav for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 2801 of 2020 and learned Advocate Ms. Ashlesha Patel in Special Civil Application No. 3495 of 2020 seek permission to withdraw the said petitions insofar as prayer with regard to the payment of benefit under 7th Pay Commission is concerned, with liberty to file fresh petition. Permission as sought for is granted. Both the

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

petitions are treated as disposed of as withdrawn insofar as request for payment of benefit under 7th Pay Commission is concerned.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective respondents waive service of Rule.

4. Since common issues are involved in all these petitions, with consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal together.

5. By way of these petitions, the petitioners who are working with the respondent-Board and who have been granted appropriate benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upon completion of five years and ten years respectively, seeking intervention of this Court for directing the respondents to pay five benefits i.e. (1) Transport Allowance; (2) Travelling Allowance; (3) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (4) Leave Encashment and (5) Leave Travel Concession, as available to the petitioners under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and which have been paid to the similarly situated employees. The petitioners further seeking direction against the respondents for merger of 50% of Dearness Allowance to be added to the basic salary of the petitioners as has been conferred upon other similarly situated employees. The petitioners further praying for direction against the respondent-Board to extend the benefit of revision of salary as per the 6th Pay Commission Recommendation to the present petitioners.

6. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Niyati V. Vaishnav for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the respondent-Board in Special Civil Application No.2801 of 2020, learned Advocate Ms. Ashlesha Patel for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Rathod for the respondent-Board in Special Civil Application Nos.3976 of 2020 and 3495 of 2020 and learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent-State in

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

all these matters.

7. At the outset, it is required to be stated that the issues raised in the present petitions are no more res integra.

8. Insofar as the benefit of merger of 50% Dearness Allowance with basic salary and grant of 6th Pay Commission benefit are concerned, this Court seeks to rely upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : N.V. Anjaria, J) dated 21.12.2017 in Special Civil Application No. 18120 of 2016. The observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in this regard would be relevant and the same are quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation.

"5. As as prayer for granting the benefit of 6th Pay Commission is concerned, the relief in this regard could be extended to the class of the petitioners herein straightway in view of decision of this Court in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar v. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board of being Special Civil Application No.11239 of 2016 and allied petitions decided as per judgment dated 18th October, 2016. The said batch of petitions were filed by similarly situated employees of the very Board who complained that they were not granted 6th Pay Commission's pay- scale even though similarly situated employees including juniors were accorded such benefit. This Court noticed the position of law emerging from Atul C.Soni (supra) confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013 and further treated and confirmed for grant of benefits for future, before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.29108-29114 of 2014 mentioned above, held as under.

"5.3 Therefore, as per the unequivocal order of the Apex Court, it is in terms directed that though the judgment will remain stayed, the benefits held admissible in terms of the judgment shall be given to the employees for the future. It is therefore clear that the petitioners of the said petitions are allowed prospectively the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. There is no gainsaying that the present group of employees consisting of the petitioners in the captioned petitions, are identically placed."

5.1 It was noticed and observed in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra)

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

also that subsequent to the aforementioned order dated 14th November, 2014 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.29108-29114 of 2014, respondent - Board had passed Office Order No.59/2016 dated 02nd September, 2016 granting 6th Pay Commission to all those employees who had filed the petitions, which was yet another direct reason to readily avail the benefit to the petitioners. It was thereafter observed and held,

"5.5 ... ... ... The very benefits of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations accorded and approved by the Supreme Court by virtue of the aforesaid order, are required to be given to the same extent, to the present petitioners. The petitioners belonging to the same class of persons and similarly situated, denial of 6th Pay Commission benefit to them would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents would act only in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, if they do not accord the benefit to the petitioners herein."

5.2 The defence of the Board about the financial constraint was negatived on the ground that such benefit could not book any justification whatsoever when the discrimination and unfair treatment was manifest. The final directions issued in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra) were as under.

"7. In view of foregoing discussion and reasons, all the petitioners in the present group of petitions are held entitled to be granted benefit of 6th Pay Commission by paying salary in the 6th Pay Commission scales from the month of October, 2016 onwards when the present order is passed. They are entitled to be treated in similar way as the employees who had approached the Court by filing aforesaid Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 and Special Civil Application No.11280 of 2010 and other cognate matters. The present petitioners shall be entitled to benefits of 6th Pay Commission prospectively. They shall receive the benefits subject to the order which may be passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.29108-29114 of 2014."

5.3 The respondent No.3 by filing affidavit-in- reply contested the petition and objected to the grant of prayer. Noticeably, what was contended by respondent No.3 inter alia was as under, extracted from paragraph 5.

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

"... ... ... as stated hereinabove, the petitioners are appointed after 30/09/1988 in spite of specific prohibition, but ultimately granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 issued by the Government of Gujarat through Roads & Building Department subsequent to a policy decision dated 30/11/1994. In other words, it is a separate Class of daily wagers and cannot be treated at par with the daily wagers who are provided work as daily wagers prior to 30/09/1988. It is submitted that therefore, the benefit of recommendation of 6 th Pay Commission are not released in favour of the petitioners and similarly situated daily wagers aggregating 2491 daily wagers. The Respondent No.3 submits that however, 50% dearness allowance is merged with the pay of the Petitioners and such other daily wagers with effect from 30/07/2012 pursuant to the order passed on 30/07/2012.... ... ..."

5.4 The stand of the respondent No.3 in sticking to the policy decision dated 30th November, 1994 and the cut-off date sought to be projected as 30th November, 1994, could hardly hold good when this court has unequivocally held that the benefits flowing from the respondent is to be made available to all the daily-rated workmen whether they were appointed prior or after the so-called cut-off date sought to be created by the respondents. When this position has been clearly laid down by this court and the Appeal and the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, taking the stand by respondent No.3 as above could be said to be indeed contumacious, if not contemptuous, to the orders of the Court. No defence much less any valid defence, has been forthcoming out of the stand of the said respondent.

5.5 The decision in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra) and the directions therein holds the field and has not been carried in Appeal before the higher forum. The said direction applies to the class of petitioners herein in so far as their prayer for granting of 6th Pay Commission's pay-scale is concerned. The petitioners are entitled to this relief in terms of the directions issued in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra).

5.6 As would be noticed from the final directions in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra) quoted in paragraph 5.2 hereinabove, benefit of 6th Pay Commission were ordered to be granted for future on the same lines as per the order of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, those petitioners filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.375 of 2017 which was allowed and the benefits were ordered to be granted,

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

instead of from the month of October, 2016 onwards, with effect from 14th November, 2014 as the respondent - Board had granted such benefit from 14th November, 2014 by passing order in respect identically placed daily-rated workmen. Thus the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the present petitioners who similarly situated, would be granted with effect from 14 th November, 2014.

6. The next prayer in respect of the benefit of merger of 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic salary with effect 01st April, 2004 also stands meritorious on the same lines of rationale and reasoning. Once the similarly situated set of employees are granted the benefit under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 with effect from 01st April, 2004, these petitioners cannot deny the said benefit with effect from the said date. Therefore, the petitioners herein stand entitled to the relief for merging 50% Dearness Allowance with effect from 01st April, 2004.

XXX XXX XXX

11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the position of law obtained, the present petition stands allowed by passing the order and directions as under.

(i) Respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of 6th Pay Commission on the lines as is granted to the similarly situated petitioners in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra) as per judgment dated 18th October, 2016 read with modified directions issued in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.375 of 2017 and accordingly confer the benefits of 6th Pay Commission for future with effect from 14th November, 2014;

XXX XXX XXX

(iii) Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the State Government Resolution dated 08th October, 2007 to the petitioners as is granted in case of other daily-wagers working with respondent No.2 Board by merging 50% of the Dearness Allowance in the basic salary of the petitioners with effect from 01st April, 2004; ......"

9. It would be pertinent to mention here that the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had been challenged by the respondent-

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

Board by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018 and whereas vide interim order dated 11.02.2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had recorded the statement of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board that as regards directions at Para Nos. 11(i) and (iii) of the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench with regard to extending benefit of 6th Pay Commission and merging 50% of Dearness Allowance in basic salary with effect from 01.04.2004, had been accepted by the Board and apropos to such directions, a proposal has been forwarded to the State Government for following necessary procedure.

10. In view of the fact that in case of similarly situated employees, the respondent-Board had accepted the directions for extending the benefit of 6th Pay Commission and merging 50% of the Dearness Allowance in the basic salary, in the considered opinion of this Court, non-grant of such benefits to the present petitioners would be a case of clear palpable discrimination and hence, the same benefits need to be extended to the petitioners also.

11. Insofar as the prayer seeking for grant of the five benefits i.e. (1) Transport Allowance; (2) Travelling Allowance; (3) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (4) Leave Encashment and (5) Leave Travel Concession, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision dated 21.12.2017 in Special Civil Application No. 18120 of 2016 had been pleased to hold that the petitioners therein were entitled to such benefits as stated hereinabove. The respondent-Board had challenged the said decision by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018 and whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Vikram Nath, CJ as then he was and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J) vide common judgment dated 27.08.2021 in Civil Application No.3910 of 2019 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 35122 of

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

2019, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench had also decided the Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018, and had observed with regard to the issue of extending the five benefits to the petitioners therein. The observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench are quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation :

"34. We have considered the submissions. The argument advanced by Shri Trivedi today is a day late and a dollar short. May be if such argument had been advanced at an appropriate time, the Court would have examined in that light. But reopening the whole issue today would result into severe discrimination and would be very unjust to the present group of employees who are engaged prior to the employees in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) which was carried upto the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has examined this aspect of the matter in great detail and has referred to the relevant judgments which has resulted into grant of the benefits on the grounds of equality and parity, rather the present employees are holding better case than the case of the employees in case of Atul C. Soni (supra). We may also note here that in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the issue regarding permanency and regularization was considered and the judgment went upto the Supreme Court to be affirmed not once but twice. Paragraph 7 and its sub-paragraphs, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contain detailed discussion on this aspect. The same are reproduced hereunder:

"7. This takes to the relief for extension of benefits of (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession on the basis of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. It is the case of the petitioners that though the said benefits are not expressly mentioned in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, they are part of the permanency benefits which are available under the Resolution and when these benefits are available to homogeneous class of permanent employees, the petitioners should also be granted the same.

7.1 This issue cannot be said to be res integra in view of decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). Those were the petitioners who were dailyrated employees, regularise in service under the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

all benefits as regular government servants were extended to them except the leave encashment, leave travel concession, etc. They had approached this Court with grievance the by not extending the said benefits, the authorities not had discriminated them, as though they were accorded permanency benefits, it was minus of the aforesaid benefits of encashment of leave, travelling allowance, etc., even as these benefits were part and parcels of permanency status.

7.1.1 In Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, noted the submissions on behalf of the State authorities thus,

"2. Learned AGP reiterated the argument that even as workmen concerned were entitled to, and were in fact granted most of the benefits at par with regular employees of the State, in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, some of the benefits such as encashment of leave, leave travel assistance, travelling allowance, uniform allowance etc. were denied to them on the basis that they were not fullfledged duly recruited government servants. Learned AGP relied upon subsequent government resolution dated 18.7.1994, whereby it was sought to be clarified that the word 'permanent' in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was meant to convey job security but it was not meant to be understood to make daily rated employees regular employees on the set up and establishment of respective departments. It was fairly conceded that entitlement of the employees concerned was wholly dependent upon reading and interpretation of G.R. dated 17.10.1988."

7.1.2 The Division Bench thereafter considered the object, applicability and scope of Government Circular dated 17th October, 1988 and further noted the clauses in the subsequent Resolution dated 18th July, 1994. It was thereafter observed in paragraph 5 to hold as under.

"5. ... ... ... subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 is expressly superseding the instructions contained in government resolution dated 3.11.1990 but does not supersede original G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Under such circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order. However, no ground or rational basis could be made out for grant of most of the benefits to most of the employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and for denial of the remaining few benefits. Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently re-branded as "daily wager" (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best "permanent daily wage employees", is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent. ... ... ..."

7.2 On behalf of respondent No.1 - State, affidavit-in-reply was filed through the Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department in which it was accepted that Special Leave Petition Nos.29108-29114 of 2014 was disposed of by the Apex Court and the question of granting benefits to the daily-wagers of respondent No.2 Board attained finality and that the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of benefits concerned is within the purview of respondent No.2 - Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. However, respondent No.1 expressed objection to the grant of the prayer in respect of extending

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

the benefit of various allowances such as Transport Allowance, Leave Encashment, Leave Travel Concession, etc., by submitting that the issue with regard to grant of these benefits to daily-wagers is pending in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) Nos.1134 of 2017 and 1271 of 2017. Dealing with the said aspect of pendency of said Letters Patent Appeals, no orders are passed in the said Letters Patent Appeals.

7.3 Not only that and in in any view, the employees involved in the said Letters Patent Appeals are the employees of the Departments of the Government whereas the present petitioners are the employees of respondent No.2 - Board. They are identically placed with other similarly situated employees of the same Board who are granted the benefits claimed in the petition. Therefore, since the petitioners belonged to the homogeneous class, they are entitled to the same benefit and same treatment. As far as the entitlement of this class of employees working under the respondent No.2 - Board, the issue can be said to have already been considered and decided.

7.4 There is yet another reason as to why the petitioners herein could not be denied the equal treatment in respect of payment of the allowances of transport allowance, travelling allowance, etc. Subsequent to the orders of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.29108-29114 of 2014 mentioned above, similarly placed batch of employees were granted the benefits by the respondent - Board by passing Office Order No.59 of 2016 dated 02nd September, 2016 in which, along with granting of benefits of 6th Pay Commission, the Board also accorded benefits of the allowances mentioned hereinabove. A reference is made to this office order in paragraph 5.4 in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra). Therefore, as far as the Board's employees are concerned and all those other similarly situated, these benefits to be extended to them as flowing from the status of permanency which they may acquire by getting benefit of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

8. The issues in the controversy and claims of and relief prayed for by the petitioners operate interactively. The decision in Atul C. Soni (supra) was also based on the Division Bench decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra).

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

8.1 It is to be further noticed that the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19970-19975 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by order dated 09th November, 2012. Thereafter the review applications came to be filed by the State being Nos.35043- 35048 of 2012 and the said review applications were also dismissed on 14th May, 2015. Therefore, the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) having attained finality upto the stage of the Apex Court, stands to operate to apply to the present petitioners and all other similarly situated employees for the purpose of their claim to be granted the allowances in question as part of permanency benefits.

9. In the above view, class of the daily-wagers to which the petitioners herein belonged, have to be held entitled to the relief prayed in paragraph 33(C) and the benefits of (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession are required to be extended to them in the same lines as they are extended to the permanent employees since these petitioners are also treated as permanent on the basis of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

9.1 The view taken as above stand solidified by subsequent decisions on the aspect. In Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.1945 of 2014, the petitioner therein was a retired daily- wager who prayed that he was entitled for encashment of privilege leave. The petitioner was appointed as daily-wager and was granted benefit of permanency under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Learned Single Judge relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was entitled to the encashment of privilege leave to the extent of 300 days. This decision in Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan (supra) was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1310 of 2015 decided on 30th October, 2015.

9.2 Referring to the decision of Division Bench in State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), it was observed in the aforementioned judgment dated 30th

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

October, 2015 as under.

"6. When the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with by the Apex Court in the afore referred proceedings of SLP and the review is also dismissed, in our view, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in exercise of the power, which may call for interference in the present appeal. Further, when the SLP is also dismissed against the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat (supra) and the review application is also subsequently dismissed, such would be a further more ground not to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge."

9.3 The same question came to be dealt with by another Division Bench of this Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Jorubhai Jijibhai Dabhi being Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 wherein also the original petitioner had claimed benefit of leave encashment upon his retirement. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition, against which Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2016 was preferred. The Division Bench relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the appeal.

10. The aforesaid facts and the principles of law highlighted, render the inaction on part of the respondent authorities (a) in not extending the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners; (b) in not merging 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic salary with effect from 01st April, 2004 and (c) in not granting the benefits of allowances (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession as part of permanency benefits though the benefit of permanency is granted to the petitioners under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, as violative of petitioners' rights under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. This discrimination has to be finally smothered by granting the relief. "

XXX XXX XXX

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

37. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the judgment in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra) having been upheld upto the Supreme Court and all the issues having been raised and having been discussed and dealt with, it would be unreasonable and unfair to the original petitioners from denying the benefit extended to the other daily wagers covered by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

38. In view of the above, group of appeals filed by the Sewerage Board and the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge extending the five benefits also deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Applications to these appeals stand disposed of."

12. Having regard to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 18120 of 2016 dated 21.12.2017, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018, and concession on behalf of the respondent-Board as recorded in the order dated 11.02.2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 587 of 2018, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits sought for by them. Hence, following directions are issued.

(i) The respondents shall pass necessary consequential orders for paying salary to the present petitioners as per the revised salary as available under the 6th Pay Commission, as paid to the similarly situated employees. The respondents shall also pass consequential orders for merging of 50% Dearness Allowance with the basic salary of the petitioners with effect from 01.04.2004. The benefits flowing from the directions as above shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.

(ii) The respondent-Board is directed to extend the five consequential benefits namely (1) Transport Allowance; (2)

C/SCA/2801/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021

Travelling Allowance; (3) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (4) Leave Encashment and (5) Leave Travel Concession, to the petitioners, which have been extended to the similarly situated employees and whereas necessary consequential orders for extending such benefits shall be passed by the respondent-Board within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.

(iii) It is further directed that in case, the respondents do not process the case of the petitioners herein for payment of the above benefits within the period of eight weeks as stipulated hereinabove, then the payment of benefits shall be accompanied with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petitions till actual payment.

13. With the above directions and observations, these petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA