JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners before this Court are Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade in various Government colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. What is common in all these writ petitions is that the petitioners were applicant in a recruitment process, which was initiated by the State Government vide advertisements dated 20.10.2004 and 04.11.2004. Consequent to which selection process was initiated for the total number of posts i.e. 1738 in various subjects such as Mathematics, Science, English, Sanskrit, Hindi etc. The petitioners were selected and thereafter they were appointed by various orders of the Government authorities in the year 2005 and 2006 (the date of appointment of each of the petitioners differs). 2. A Government notification was issued on 25.10.2005, which was made effective from 01.10.2005. The net result of this notification/order was that all those Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade, who were appointed after 01.10.2005, would not get pensionary benefits. In other words, the petitioners will be deprived of their pensionary benefits after they reach the age of superannuation. 3. On the other hand the case of the petitioners is that at the time when the selection process was initiated by the Government, the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Government colleges were pensionary posts. This is an admitted fact. Undoubtedly, the petitioners were being selected for the said post which had pensionary benefits. After the selection process was completed only appointment orders were to be issued when this change has been done. 4. This Court in a similar matter in WPSS No. 1170 of 2010, Ashutosh Joshi & others Vs State of Uttarakhand & others decided on 17.06.2013 relating to Lecturers in various Government Intermediate Colleges had allowed the writ petition and has held that denial of pensionary benefits to the teachers, who were selected at a time when the post carry pensionary benefit, is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in the present case certain candidates, who were selected in pursuance of the same advertisements dated 20.10.2004 and 04.11.2004, but were fortunate to be given appointment letter prior to the notification dated 25.10.2005 are getting the pensionary benefits. This is again violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it is patently discriminatory. 5. Moreover, in the present case certain candidates, who were selected in pursuance of the same advertisements dated 20.10.2004 and 04.11.2004, but were fortunate to be given appointment letter prior to the notification dated 25.10.2005 are getting the pensionary benefits. This is again violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it is patently discriminatory. 5. Accordingly the writ petitions are also disposed of in the same terms and conditions as made in Writ Petition No. 1170 (S/S) of 2010 (Ashutosh Joshi and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others) and a mandamus is issued to the State to keep their service condition unchanged and unaffected from this notification dated 25.10.2005. 6. No order as to costs.