JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. We have heard Shri A.S. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri V.M. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, for the respondents. 2. These two appeals are against the common judgment and order dated 22.11.2004 of the learned single Judge in which the relief for retrospective provincialisation of the services of the appellants-writ petitioners from the day the benefits of provincialisation had been given to similarly situated persons was rejected by the learned single judge. 3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are simple and undisputed. Shri A.S. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners-appellants, submits that St. Joseph's High School, Barpeta, was given recognition by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as early as in the year 1970 and Katajihar High School, Barpeta, was also given recognition in the year 1991. The Government of Assam took a decision to provincialise the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of 250 Nos. High Schools/High Masrassa Schools, which have received recognition from the Board up to the year 1991 and the appellant-writ petitioners were eligible for consideration of provincialisation as their schools had been given recognition in the year 1970 and 1991 respectively. However, the cases of the appellants-writ petitioners were left out or excluded from getting the benefit of provincialisation which had been given to other similarly situated persons in the year 1995. However, the case of the appellants-writ petitioners were considered afresh for provincialisation through a proposal dated 18.06.1996 and ultimately the services of the appellants were provincialised by the Govt. vide order dated 08.06.1999. The appellants-writ petitioners came out before this Court in Writ Petition (c) Nos. 7306/2001 and 7307/2001 praying for direction to have their services provincialised with effect from 01.08.1995 i.e. from the day the services of other similarly situated persons had been provincialised. The reasons disclosed by the Government for the exclusion of the appellants are "oversight and inadvertence" and the learned single Bench has already recorded its findings in this aspect, which are quoted below: In the present case, it has been clearly stated by the State Govt. in its communication dated 2.6.06 (Annexure-A) that the two schools in question were left out of the process of provicialisation under order dated 22.11.1995, inadvertently, and through oversight. 4. Mr. in its communication dated 2.6.06 (Annexure-A) that the two schools in question were left out of the process of provicialisation under order dated 22.11.1995, inadvertently, and through oversight. 4. Mr. Choudhury further submits that despite the findings as quoted above, the learned single Judge declined to grant relief to the appellants and such refusal is not tenable in law. The learned senior Counsel further submits that the appellants-writ petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of theirs in the matter of provincialisation of their services and this discriminatory treatment emanating from the mistake of the Government must be rectified so that equals are not treated unequally. We have noticed that there is considerable force in the argument of Shri Choudhury. 5. Shri V.M. Thomas, learned standing Counsel, Education Department submits that the services of the appellants have been provincialised vide order No. B(3) Section 72/97/78, dated 8th June, 1999 along with the teachers of 3 (three) other schools whose cases are not before us. Shri Thomas further submits that retrospective provincialisation with effect from 01.08.1995 with financial benefit will not only burden the Govt. financially but will also open a floodgate for similar claim from others. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and we do not find any justification as to why the appellants-writ petitioners should be denied the benefit of provincialisation which were given to the similarly situated. This unequal treatment amongst the similarly situated teachers and employees of the schools is violative of equality law. However, the fact that the services of the appellants-writ petitioners were factually provincialised only with effect from 08.06.1999 cannot be lost sight of. 7. Considering all aspects of the matter and balancing the rival submissions, we hold that the appellants-writ petitioners are entitled to have their services provincialised with effect from 01.08.1995. However, benefit of this retrospective provincialisation shall be confined to pensionary and retiral benefits only. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue necessary orders in this regard in terms of the above findings within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. 8. The writ appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Appeal allowed