JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers: “i) That the order dated July 2, 2008 Annexure P-8 passed by Commissioner Disabilities may very kindly be ordered to be implemented. ii) That the respondents may kindly be ordered to offer regular appointment from the date of their appointment 2004 with all consequential benefits. iii) That the respondents may be directed to implement the persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, in letter and spirit.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondent No. 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 3 of the preliminary submissions and para 11 on merits: Preliminary Submissions: …………. “3. That the petitioners had filed joint appeal petition under Section 61 read with Sections 62 and 63 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 before the court of respondent No. 3 i.e. Pr. Secretary Social Justice & Empowerment-cum-Commissioner (Disabilities) H.P. on 6.4.2008 who had decided the same on 2.7.2008 by giving directions to Education Department to take necessary action by placing the matter before the competent authority as early as possible but not later than 60 days from today for regularization of the petitioners from the date of the decision of the competent authority. The action was required to be taken by the respondents No. 2 & 4 but no such action was taken by them therefore, the petitioners filed an Execution Petition on 9-12-2008 before the Hon’ble Court of Commissioner (Disabilities). A show Cause notice was issued on 23-1-2009 to respondent No. 4 to explain their position within the period of 15 days personally. Instead of filing the reply to the Show Cause Notice respondent no. 4 filed a review petition on 18-11-2009 alongwith request for condonation of delay of 477 days in filing the review petition. The then Pr. Secretary (SJ&E) to the Govt. of HP-cum-Commissioner (Disabilities) H.P. on 17.4.10 dismissed the review petition for want of maintainability. The issue of regularization of the Persons with Disabilities has been considered by the State Govt. afresh in the light of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and it has been held that the Act in question do not mandatorily provide for appointment on regular basis only. The issue of regularization of the Persons with Disabilities has been considered by the State Govt. afresh in the light of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and it has been held that the Act in question do not mandatorily provide for appointment on regular basis only. All concerned have been informed accordingly on 6-8-2010 and respondents No. 2 & 4 have been conveyed separately on 6-8-2010. Instead of taking action on the basis of these instructions, the Education Department through Principal Secretary (Edu.) has filed another review petition before the Hon’ble Court of Commissioner (Disabilities) on 16-8-2010 for reviewing the decision dated 2-7-2008 and 17-4-2010. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that neither in Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 nor under Sections 114 & 151 CPC there is any provision of reviewing the decisions at the level of Commissioner Disabilities hence the matter may kindly be decided by the Hon’ble High Court on merit basis. On merits: …………. 11. That with regard to the grounds of filing present CWP mentioned at sub paras (i) to (x), it is submitted that the petitioners have been provided employment as per provisions contained in the PWD Act, 1995 and no violation of the provisions of the Act and International Convention of Protection of Rights of the Disabled has been made. It is pertinent to mention here that in Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995 and in Article 27 para 1(a) to (c) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities there is a mention of providing employment to the Persons with Disabilities but there is no mandatory provision of regular employment. Further, with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners it is submitted that State Govt. has considered the issue regularization of the PWDs in accordance with the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995 and held that the Act in question do not mandatorily provide for appointment on regular basis. Moreover State Govt. is making now all appointments on daily wage basis/contract basis and the posts reserved for PWDs are also being filled accordingly without any discrimination. In this regard, fresh instructions have also been issued to all the concerned on 6.8.10 and specifically to the respondent no. 2 and 4 i.e. Pr. Moreover State Govt. is making now all appointments on daily wage basis/contract basis and the posts reserved for PWDs are also being filled accordingly without any discrimination. In this regard, fresh instructions have also been issued to all the concerned on 6.8.10 and specifically to the respondent no. 2 and 4 i.e. Pr. Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and Director Higher Education vide letter No. WLF-F(10)-4/2000-VII dated 6.8.10 annexed as R-1.” 3. On 20.06.2012 the following order was passed by this Court in this matter: “Reply to the petition on behalf of respondent No. 3 has already been filed. No reply is sought to be filed on behalf of other respondents. Rejoinder already filed. The State is given time to consider the directions issued by the Commissioner (Disabilities), H.P. dated 2nd July, 2008 directing the Department of Education to take necessary steps. Let instructions be placed on record as to be taken by Director, Department of Education to comply the said order. Instructions be p0alced on record within three weeks and put up for hearing on 25.7.2012.” 4. Compliance affidavit in terms of the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2012 has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, which is taken on record, wherein vide paras 3 and 4 it is stated as under: “3. That in this behalf, it is respectfully submitted that all the six petitioners after their appointment on contract basis at fixed honorarium of Rs. 4020/- per month at different Govt. colleges as Tabla Players under physically disabled quota of visually impaired candidates vide Annexure P-1 to P-6 respectively filed petition before the Commissioner under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. This petition vide Annexure P-8 on 2.7.2008 was decided and allowed by the Ld. Commissioner with direction to replying respondents to take necessary action to clear the backlog of reservation by filing these posts from said category on regular basis. Pursuant to this direction, the office of Secretary (Education) respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 10.9.2008 was requested by the replying respondent to convey necessary directions. However, the office of respondent No. 3 Secretary Social Justice Empowerment in the meanwhile served show cause notice dated 23.1.2009 to regularize the incumbents engaged these 10 posts within 15 days. Accordingly upon receipt of this notice vide letter dated 19.2.2009 the matter was again taken up by replying respondents with respondent no. However, the office of respondent No. 3 Secretary Social Justice Empowerment in the meanwhile served show cause notice dated 23.1.2009 to regularize the incumbents engaged these 10 posts within 15 days. Accordingly upon receipt of this notice vide letter dated 19.2.2009 the matter was again taken up by replying respondents with respondent no. 2 to grant necessary approval. The Govt. after examining the entire issue decided to file Review Petition against order dated 2.7.2008 which advice was conveyed through letter dated 7.10.2009. Accordingly on 18.9.2009 Review Petition was also filed before the Ld. Commissioner to the extent that petitioners have been appointed on contract basis in terms of directions passed by the Govt. under 3% quota reserved for said category which do not provide appointment on regular basis. Besides all these appointments in various departments have also been made uniformly on contract basis but not on regular basis which has also been advised by Finance Department as well as Department of Personal. Therefore, the earlier order dated 2.7.2009 so passed may be reviewed. However, this review petition was dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner. Accordingly after the verdict, the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers alongwith which the advises of all the three advisory departments was also placed. The same was considered by the Council of Ministers Members and decided to file revised review petition before the Ld. Commissioner. Pursuant to this advise so conveyed on 20.7.2010 by the office of respondent No. 2 to replying respondent revised review petition was prepared which was sent to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 5.8.2010. Copy of same is annexed as Annexure R-1 the same was also filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Ld. Commissioner during after 5th August, 2010 which was per the record of respondent department is still pending before the Ld. Commissioner. Hence, till this final outcome, in view of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers dated 9.7.2010, the decision passed by the Ld. Commissioner Annexure P-8 till now could not be implemented by the respondent department/Government against which no cause of action accrue to petitioners till it is decided finally. 4. Commissioner. Hence, till this final outcome, in view of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers dated 9.7.2010, the decision passed by the Ld. Commissioner Annexure P-8 till now could not be implemented by the respondent department/Government against which no cause of action accrue to petitioners till it is decided finally. 4. That as submitted above the claim of petitioners is neither sustainable nor maintainable for appointment on regular basis instead of contract basis for the reason that even Social Justice & Empowerment department i.e. respondent No. 3 has earlier also conveyed approval/sanction to appoint the petitioners on contract basis instead of regular basis vide letter dated 31.12.2003. Copy of same is annexed as Annexure R-2. The kind of perusal of same reveals that at Sr. No. 2 total 10 posts of Tabla Vadaks were conveyed to filled in Education Department on contract basis only. Therefore, pursuant to this sanction of respondent No. 3 all the six petitioners have been ordered to be engaged strictly on contract basis vide letter dated 28.6.2004. Pursuant to this they also entered into agreement and submitted joining. The copy of one of such agreement of petitioner No. 1 and his joining is annexed as Annexure R-3 (colly.). therefore when pursuant to said all of them when engaged during 2004 and also joined without any protest as such now the claim of the petitioner seeking regular appointment instead of appointment on contract basis on the one hand is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches and on the other hand even on principal of estoppel is not sustainable as the respondent State has been appointing all the incumbents only on contract basis instead of regular basis which after has also been accepted by them by entering into contract agreement and now they are governed under its clauses and cannot be allowed to take any u turn to the same.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the very out set that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 28.10.2010, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2466 of 2010, titled Hem Raj & others vs. State of H.P. & others, text whereof is as under: “In these writ petitions the petitioners claim regular appointment from the date(s) of their appointment(s) since they have been recruited against the posts reserved for physically challenged persons. In the reply furnished on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, it is admitted at para 4 that the department has implemented the provisions under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995. Further it is admitted at para 7 that “the department of Animal Husbandry had published the advertisement in the newspaper for filling up the posts of daily paid beldars on daily wages basis for the candidates belonging to the disabled category.” 2. The question is whether the department of Animal Husbandry has satisfied the 3% quota for disabled persons in terms of requirement under the Act No.11 of 1995. It cannot satisfy the requirement of reservation in regular service by engaging persons on daily wages. The requirement has to be satisfied against the cadre strength of beldars. Cadre strength of beldars has to be worked as the cadre strength of regular beldars and not of the daily waged beldars. Certainly, it is open to the department to define the cadre strength of regular beldars and cadre strength of daily waged beldars. If such a distinction is sought to be made by the department then the requirement under the statute is that 3% quota should be met in the cadre of daily waged beldars and in the case of regular beldars. It is not clear from the reply as to whether this requirement of law has been met by the Animal Husbandry department. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the Director, Animal Husbandry to see whether 3% quota of disabled persons has been met in the category of regular beldars. It is not clear from the reply as to whether this requirement of law has been met by the Animal Husbandry department. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the Director, Animal Husbandry to see whether 3% quota of disabled persons has been met in the category of regular beldars. In case there is deficiency in the 3% quota in the cadre strength of regular beldars, the persons recruited in these cases shall be adjusted against those regular vacancies, since the recruitment process is the same for daily wages beldars and regular beldars, . We make it clear that it is open to the Animal Husbandry department to ear-mark separate quota of 3% as against the daily waged beldars as well, subject to fulfillment of regular beldars in the ear-marked quota of 3%. Needful adjustments in the case of petitioners in the light of this judgment shall be done by the Director, Animal Husbandry, within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners. Consequential benefits shall also be disbursed within another period of two months. 3. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.” 6. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the aforesaid judgment dated 28.10.2010, in CWP No. 2466 of 2010 and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the petitioners are similarly situate, benefit of the said judgment shall also be extended to them without any discrimination within three months from today, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall also be payable on any amount due to them under this judgment. 7. The petition, as also pending CMP No. 8420 of 2010, stand disposed of in the above terms.