JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. Serto, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. A.R. Malhotra. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General on behalf of State respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 8. 2. case of petitioners as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. A.R. Malhotra is that they were appointed as Primary Teachers under Government of Mizoram between year 1971 to 1973 and continued to served as such, till they were transferred to Lai Autonomous District Council by an Order dated 9.9.1975 issued by respondent No. 2. And while serving under Lai Autonomous District Council, petitioners have retired from service in between 2012 to 2015, but unfortunately their pension matters have not been settled so far by respondents. 3. Mr. A.R. Malhotra further submitted that even though petitioners were on deputation/transferred to Lai Autonomous District Council they were not in Foreign Service, therefore, continued to be in service of State Government. learned counsel drew my attention to Office Memorandum No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 23.1.2002 and Notification issued on 30.11.2004 being No. B.20013/1/2000-EDN/PT dated 30.11.2004 in support of his submission. contents of two documents are reproduced below : No. A. 35011/1/2002-F.Est. Government of Mizoram Finance Department Aizawl, 23rd January, 2002. Office Memorandum Sub: Interpretation of term 'Foreign Service'-Clarification thereof. It has been observed that there are misconception among various departments in interpretation of term 'Foreign Service' since some officers are on deputation under Mizoram Public Service Commission or three Autonomous District Councils (viz :- Chakma Autonomous District Council, Lai Autonomous District Council and Mara Autonomous District Council). It is hereby clarified that services on deputation under Mizoram Public Service Commission or three Autonomous Districts is not to be treated as Foreign Service since these establishments are under consolidated fund of State. Foreign Service shall literally mean service in which a Government Servant receives his pay with sanction of Government from any source other than Consolidated Fund of India or Consolidated Fund of a State or Consolidated Fund of a Union Territory, as per FR & SR. Services on deputation under any establishment/corporations funded under Consolidated Fund of India, Consolidated Fund of a State or Consolidated Fund or Union Territory should not be treated as Foreign Service. Services on deputation under any establishment/corporations funded under Consolidated Fund of India, Consolidated Fund of a State or Consolidated Fund or Union Territory should not be treated as Foreign Service. Sd/- Vanhela Pachuau Secretary to Government of Mizoram" "No. B.20013/1/2000-EDN/Pt Government of Mizoram Education & Human Resource Development (School Education) Dated Aizawl, 30th November, 2004. Notification In pursuance of Office Memorandum issued by Finance Department, Government of Mizoram vide No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. date 23.01.2002 and in supersession of terms and conditions for transfer of Primary Schools in erstwhile Chhimtuipui District to 3(three) Autonomous District Councils vide Notification No. EPS.4/74/54 date 9.9.1975 Governor of Mizoram is pleased to order that services of Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of Primary Schools transferred to Autonomous District Council shall not be treated as 'Foreign Service' since establishments under District Councils are paid out of and from Consolidated Fund of State of Mizoram, and Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of aforesaid schools shall stand exempted from payment of pension and leave salary contributions. The services of Teaching and Non-Teaching employees of all these Schools will be governed by terms and conditions of permanent absorption of Teaching and Non-Teaching employees of Government of Mizoram to services of Autonomous District Councils issued vide Notification No. C. 14011/91/2000-EDN dated 5.3.2003. Sd/- Vanhela Pachuau Principal Secretary to Government of Mizoram." 4. In view of this Memorandum and Notification petitioners were exempted from making contribution towards pension and leave salary. However, Government of Mizoram, Finance Department issued another Office Memorandum dated 15.3.2011 by which Office Memorandum and Notification were cancelled. content of said Office Memorandum is given below: "No. A. 35011/1/2002-F.Est Government of Mizoram Finance Department Office memorandum Aizawl, 15th March, 2011. Sub: Interpretation of term "Foreign Service" - Clarification thereof. All Administrative Departments/Heads of Departments are hereby informed that, in pursuance of decision of Meeting of Officers of DP & AR and Finance Department on 21.10.2010, Office Memorandum issued vide No. A. 35011/1/2002-F.Est dated 23.01.2002 stands cancelled from date of issue of this office Memorandum. Sd/- Lalmalsawma Finance Secretary, Government of Mizoram. 5. According to learned counsel, this Memorandum was challenged in a writ petition being WP(C) No. 117/2013 by one Mr. H.C. Laitha, President Primary Teacher Association, Mara District Headquarters, Saiha who were also similarly situated. This Court in Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2014, which is annexed here as Annexure-V, disposed petition wherein said Memorandum dated 15.3.2011 was quashed. 5. According to learned counsel, this Memorandum was challenged in a writ petition being WP(C) No. 117/2013 by one Mr. H.C. Laitha, President Primary Teacher Association, Mara District Headquarters, Saiha who were also similarly situated. This Court in Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2014, which is annexed here as Annexure-V, disposed petition wherein said Memorandum dated 15.3.2011 was quashed. And while quashing Office Memorandum this Court also directed that representation of members of Association praying for granting pensionary benefits which was pending be considered and disposed within a period of 2 (two) months. In pursuance of direction given in Judgment and Order Government of Mizoram issued an Order dated 12.1.2014 No. C. 14011/6/2013-EDN by which service of 10 (ten) members of petitioners association was treated as on deputation and their pension cases were finalized as per Office Memorandum No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 23.1.2002 and subsequent Notification No. D. 2013/1/2000-EDN/ET dated 30.11.2004 which are nothing but Memorandum and Notification referred to by petitioners. contents of said Office Memorandum is given below': "No. C. 14011/6/2013-Edn. Government of Mizoram School Education Department Dated, Aizawl 12th June, 2014. Order Whereas, Government of Mizoram by Notification No. EPS.4.74/53-A dated 9.9.1975 transferred 88 Primary/LP School Teachers to Lakher (Mara) Autonomous District Council under term and conditions that they will be on deputation on foreign service without any deputation allowance. And whereas, said notification reiterated that during period of their deputation, they will be under full administrative control of concerned District Council Authorities, however, they will continue to retain their status as Government servant with all benefits attached to such status. And whereas, in pursuance of decision of meeting of Officers of DP & AR and Finance Department issued O.M. No. A. 35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 15.3.2011 cancelling its own O.M. No. A.35011/1/2002. F.Est dated 23.01.2002. And whereas, association of so transferred teachers, being aggrieved by O.M. dated 15.3.2011 debarring payment of their pensionary benefits submitted and filed a Writ Petition No. WP(C) 117 of 2013. HC Laitha v. State of Mizoram & Ors. to Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Aizawl Bench for cancellation of O.M. No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 15.3.2011 and to finalize their pension. And whereas, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Aizawl Bench in its Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2014 thereby set aside and quashed O.M. conveyed under Memo No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. HC Laitha v. State of Mizoram & Ors. to Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Aizawl Bench for cancellation of O.M. No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 15.3.2011 and to finalize their pension. And whereas, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Aizawl Bench in its Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2014 thereby set aside and quashed O.M. conveyed under Memo No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 15.3.2011 and directed State respondent to dispose of representation filed by Petitioners Association on 24.7.2013 by a speaking order and further directed state respondent to take into consideration notification dated 9.9.1975 as well as O.M. conveyed under Memo No. A.35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 23.1.2002 and also to consider pension case of those 10 teachers who have already retired before finalization of instant writ petition. Now therefore, it is hereby notified that service conditions of 10 members of petitioner's association in WP(C) No. 117/2013 so transferred to Lakher (Mara) Autonomous District Council, who have already retired since 2011 shall be treated as on deputation without any deputation allowance and their pension case shall be finalized as per OM No. A. 35011/1/2002. F. Est. dated 23.1.2002 and subsequent Notification No. B. 20013/1/2000-EDN/Pt dated 30.11.04 and Corrigendum No. B. 20013/1/2000-EDN/Ptdt. 5.8.2005. By order and in name of Governor of Mizoram. Sd/- (L. Tochhong) Chief Secretary Government of Mizoram." 6. However, in spite of all above stated facts and circumstances, respondents no. 1 to 5, so far, have not initiated process for payment of pension to petitioners on ground that it is District Council to which they were deputed which is responsible for payment of their pension. petitioners having no choice sent, a legal notice through their learned counsel to respondents which is at Annexure-VIII of this writ petition. In reply to same, respondent No. 2 sent a para wise comment on legal notice to counsel of petitioners vide his letter dated 19.8.2016 which is annexed as Annexure-X of this writ petition. At para-6 of reply, respondents admitted that Hon'ble High Court had disposed petition of similarly situated persons i.e. petitioners in writ petition WP (C) No. 117/2013 in their favour. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that taking all that has been stated into account respondents 1 to 5 be directed to consider payment of pension to petitioners at earliest so that they may start enjoying same like petitioners in WP (C) No. 117/2013 who are similarly situated. 7. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that taking all that has been stated into account respondents 1 to 5 be directed to consider payment of pension to petitioners at earliest so that they may start enjoying same like petitioners in WP (C) No. 117/2013 who are similarly situated. 7. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 furnished a copy of Office Memorandum being No. A.35011/1/2013-PNAR (GSW) dated 2.7.2014 and referred to at Para-4.2 of same and submitted that Government servants like petitioners who were on deputation in District Councils, when retired, their pension should be paid by State Government and borrowing Department is not liable to make any contribution towards same. Para-4.2 of Memorandum referred to by learned counsel is given herein below:- "4.2. In case of State Government employees transferred on deputation to posts in Offices or Bodies having autonomous administrative control and not on foreign services, payment of leave salary and pension contribution by borrowing Department to State Government shall not be required." 8. I have considered submission of both learned counsel and learned Addl. Advocate General. Since Office Memorandum dated 15.3.2011 being No. A. 35011/1/2002-F.EST which cancelled said Office Memorandum and Notification No. A. 35011/1/2002-F.Est. dated 23.1.02 and No. B.20013/1/2000-EDN/PT dated 30.11.04 respectively has been quashed, I agree with submission of learned counsel for petitioner that State Government is responsible for paying pensionary benefit of petitioners and not District Council to which they were deputed. Moreover, since case of petitioners in WP(C) No. 117/2013, who were similarly situated as petitioners in this case, after WP(C) was disposed, has been considered by Government, and their pensions have been finalized vide Order dated 12.6.14 No. C. 14011/6/2013-CDN and paid, it would amount to discrimination if case of petitioners in this case is not given same treatment. In view of above facts and circumstances and reasons there is no reason why petitioners should also not be given pension by State Government and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 should not have issued necessary orders for making payment of pensionary benefits to petitioners who had served State so faithfully till time of their superannuation. Therefore, this Court has no choice but to direct respondents No. 1 to 5 to finalize pension of petitioners and pay them within a period of 3 (three) months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. Therefore, this Court has no choice but to direct respondents No. 1 to 5 to finalize pension of petitioners and pay them within a period of 3 (three) months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this writ petition is disposed of.