1. Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the State respondents. 2. Mr. N. Sailo, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed in 2001 as Primary School Teachers under the Operation Blackboard Scheme. Petitioners continued in their service till 2003 when the OBB Scheme was discontinued. Thereafter, they were engaged as a School Teachers under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme on contract basis in June 2003 and continued as such till May 2008. The petitioners were thereafter engaged as Primary School Teachers on contract basis by engagement order dated 10.9.2008 for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.6.2008. The services of the petitioners were thereafter extended from time-to-time and they are continuing as such till date. At this stage, the learned senior counsel submits that similarly situated persons had approached this court by way of WP(C) No. 161 of 2002 and the same was disposed of with the following directions : "16. Although it has been held that the petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services and for that matter setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 26.3.2002, but they cannot be denied of their right for consideration of absorption against present or future vacancies. The petitioners have already rendered 5 years of service and have gained enough experience as Primary School Teachers. They had entered into their services naturally with expectation that the scheme would continue and there would be future employment opportunity for them. Unfortunately that was not to be so and their services had to be dispensed with in absence of Central assistance by way of providing fund. Fortunately enough the Central Government provided yet another scheme called SSA in which the petitioners have been considered and have been continued in service. However, as in the earlier occasion this time also they have been adjusted against a particular scheme with a particular span of life. It will be just and proper if the State Government consider the case of the petitioner for absorption against future vacancies according to their seniority. For such absorption the petitioners may be provided with age relaxation and counting of their experience they have already earned. At one stage they were sought to be considered for absorption against 28 vacancies as noticed above. For such absorption the petitioners may be provided with age relaxation and counting of their experience they have already earned. At one stage they were sought to be considered for absorption against 28 vacancies as noticed above. However, the same could not be materialized due to reasons known to the respondents. The respondents in their affidavit have expressed their inability to continue the services of the petitioners due to financial crunch and no mandamus can be issued to them for creation of posts or filling up of vacancies to accommodate the petitioners. As already observed above, it is within the exclusive domain of the State Government to fill up or not to fill up the available vacancies. At the same time the State Government cannot be oblivious of their duty and responsibility cast on them towards consideration of the case of the petitioners. It is in this context, it has been provided that the respondents may consider the case of the petitioners for their absorption against present or future vacancies and till the petitioners are absorbed or adjusted in phased manner according to their seniority, the respondents may not resort to any direct recruitment to the vacant posts, be it present or future without first considering the case of the petitioners for absorption as per seniority and any other criteria as may be laid down. If at all any process of selection by way of direct recruitment is required to be initiated to fill up the present or future vacancies under compelling reasons without first considering the case of the petitioners for their adjustment or absorption, they shall be given age relaxation and due weightage of their past experience and training". 3. The case of the petitioners were not considered for regularization by the respondents and, therefore, they had approached this court by way of WP(C) No. 114 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 18.1.2013 wherein the relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow : "24. Having regard to the above, taking an overall view of the matter and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that the posts held by the present petitioners should not be made available to recruitment through open advertisement. Having regard to the above, taking an overall view of the matter and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that the posts held by the present petitioners should not be made available to recruitment through open advertisement. Since the State has framed the Regularization Scheme, case of the petitioners should be considered in terms of the Regularization Scheme. 25. In view of the above discussion, the 108 posts held by the present petitioners should be excluded from open advertisement. In other words, the remaining posts, i.e., 166-108=58 posts and such further posts as may be available should be filled up by way of open advertisement. Case of the petitioners shall be considered for regularization as per seniority and subject to fulfillment of eligibility requirement under the Regularization Scheme. Till such time, the contractual appointment of the petitioners would continue. Needless to say, it will be open to the private respondents to participate in the recruitment process that may be conducted by the State," 4. Despite the judgment and order dated 18.1.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 114 of 2011, the respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and, therefore, a contempt petition being Contempt Case (C) No. 10 of 2013 was filed by the petitioners. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the respondents issued office order dated 3.2.2014 regularizing the service of the petitioners with effect from the date of issue of the order and, therefore, the contempt petition was closed. 5. Mr. N. Sailo, the learned senior counsel submits that the present writ petition has been filed for modification of the impugned order dated 3.2.2014 inasmuch as para 2 of the impugned order dated 3.2.2014 stipulates that the past services of the petitioners shall not be counted for the purpose of pension benefits as they were regularized after 1.9.2010 and in compliance with the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department Notification dated 27.2.2012. The learned senior counsel submits that the State respondents have formulated a Scheme under article 309 of the Constitution of India called the Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (Regularization Scheme of 2008) wherein it stipulates that the contract employees on regularization, their past services rendered shall be counted as qualifying services for leave and pensionary benefits. The learned senior counsel submits that the State respondents have formulated a Scheme under article 309 of the Constitution of India called the Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (Regularization Scheme of 2008) wherein it stipulates that the contract employees on regularization, their past services rendered shall be counted as qualifying services for leave and pensionary benefits. He, therefore, submits that as the petitioners were regularized under Regularization Scheme of 2008, their past services rendered on contract basis should be counted for leave and pensionary benefits. However, by the stipulation made in paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 3.2.2014, the respondents have denied the same inasmuch as the past services of the petitioners are not counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits as they were regularized after 1.9.2010. 6. Mr. N. Sailo, the learned senior counsel also submits that the State respondents have also formulated a Scheme called the Mizoram New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, 2010 (Pension Scheme of 2010) which came into effect from 1st September, 2010. Therein, paragraph 2.1(e) and (f) stipulates that the said pension Scheme of 2010 shall not apply to persons employed on contract basis and to persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law or specific Schemes for the time being in force. This being the admitted position, he submits that the respondents could not have denied the past services of the petitioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits inasmuch as they were regularized under the Regularization Scheme of 2008. He also submits that the stipulation provided at para 2 of the impugned office order dated 3.2.2014 was in compliance of the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department Notification dated 27.2.2012. It is submitted that the said Notification dated 27.2.2012 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram intends to modify the pension Scheme of 2010 which is also not permissible in law and, therefore, this court has already set aside the same by judgment and order dated 28.5.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 25 of 2013. Under the circumstances, he submits that the office order dated 3.2.2014 should be modified by quashing and setting aside para 2 contained therein as the same is not sustainable in law. 7. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned Addl. Under the circumstances, he submits that the office order dated 3.2.2014 should be modified by quashing and setting aside para 2 contained therein as the same is not sustainable in law. 7. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram submits that there is nothing wrong in the Notification dated 27.2.2012 inasmuch as by the said Notification, the State respondents were only trying to supplement the Pension Scheme of 2010. He also, submits that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis under the State fund w.e.f. 1.6.2008 and subsequently regularized by the office order dated 3.2.2014. He submits that the Pension Scheme of 2010 which was formulated under 309 of the Constitution had already come into effect on 1.9.2010 much ahead of the order dated 3.2.2014 and, therefore, the petitioners are governed by the Pension Scheme of 2010. He submits that as the Pension Scheme of 2010 had not clearly specified the case of contract employees who are subsequently regularized, the respondents had, therefore, brought in the Notification dated 27.2.2012 to clear the confusion. Under the circumstances, he submits that there is nothing wrong in the order dated 3.2.2014 and, therefore, the same should not be interfered with. 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 9. It is undisputed, nor is it denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the State respondents that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis w.e.f. 1.6.2008 and that they were regularized under the Regularization Scheme of 2008. The Regularization Scheme of 2008 provides that past services rendered by a contract employee shall be counted for leave and pensionary benefits on regularization and the said Regularization Scheme of 2008 still holds the field. This being the admitted position, this court has no hesitation to come to the finding that the petitioners are entitled to have their past services counted for the purpose of leave and pensionary benefits as stipulated under para 7 of the Regularization Scheme of 2008. 10. Coming to the Notification dated 27.2.2012, this court has already held in WP(C) No. 25 of 2013 by judgment and order dated 28.5.2014 that the said Notification dated 27.2.2012 as being illegal and the same was set aside and quashed. As such, no further discussion is required in this matter as the Notification dated 27.2.2012 is already non est in law. 11. As such, no further discussion is required in this matter as the Notification dated 27.2.2012 is already non est in law. 11. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 3.2.2014 reads as under : "Further, in compliance of Government of Mizoram, Finance Department's Notification No.G.17011/2/2011- F.APF dated 27.2.2012, past services of Contract employees shall not be counted for the purpose of pension benefits since these 108 (One hundred eight) Primary Teachers are regularized after 1.9.2010." From a reading of the aforesaid paragraph contained in the office order dated 3.2.2014, it is clear that the past services of the petitioners on contract basis were not counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits as they are regularized after 1.9.2010 and in compliance of the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department Notification dated 27.2.2012. 12. Paragraph 2.1(e) and (f) of the Pension Scheme of 2010 clearly indicates that the said Pension Scheme of 2010 shall not apply to persons employed on contract basis or to persons whose terms and conditions are regulated or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law or specific Schemes for the time being in force. This being the position and the said Scheme having not been amended as provided by law, this court has no hesitation to declare that the Pension Scheme of 2010 is not applicable to the petitioners and paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 3.2.2014 as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, paragraph 2 contained in the office order dated 3.2.2014 is set aside and quashed. The impugned order dated 3.2.2014 issued by the Director of School Education, Mizoram, Aizawl regularizing the petitioners stands modified to that extent. In other words, the past services of the contract employment of the petitioners shall be counted for the purpose of leave and pensionary benefits. 13. This writ petition is allowed. No cost.