JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioners herein are working as Lecturers in Shri Vishwanath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Chakmoh, District Hamirpur under Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deothsidh, the second respondent. The said college is an associated college of Himachal Pradesh University within the meaning of Chapter-XXXIX of Himachal Pradesh University First Ordinances. The teaching staff working in the college respondent No. 4 herein is governed by the Rules Appendix-A to para 38.5 B of chapter XXXVIII of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University. In terms of Rule 12, para 38.5 B(d) supra the retirement of every teacher though shall be at the age of 60 years. However, a teacher allow to continue in service till the end of the academic session even though he may have attained the age of 60 years. The petitioners, as such, have to retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years viz in the case of Purshotam Dass, the petitioner in CWP No. 4349 of 2015 is 30.11.2017, whereas in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, the petitioner in CWP No. 4811 of 2015 is 31.1.2018. The respondents, however, are adamant to retire them at the age of 58 years i.e. 30.11.2015 and 31.1.2016. Since such act and conduct on the part of the respondents is stated to be violative of the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners, hence the respondents have been sought to be restrained from retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years with further prayer that they may be allowed to continue till they attain the age of 60 years or at the end of academic session. 2. In reply, the stand of respondents No. 2 to 4 in a nutshell is that in the matter of service conditions the petitioners are not governed by the provisions contained under the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University and rather under the service rules of the employees of Shri Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust. The petitioners, as such, are stated to be due for retirement on attainment of the age of 58 years. The judgments of this Court annexed to these writ petitions are, therefore, not applicable in the case of the petitioners who are the employees of respondent No. 4-College and not that of Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shri Naina Devi Ji and Baba Balak Nath Degree College, Chakmoh. 3. The judgments of this Court annexed to these writ petitions are, therefore, not applicable in the case of the petitioners who are the employees of respondent No. 4-College and not that of Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shri Naina Devi Ji and Baba Balak Nath Degree College, Chakmoh. 3. Respondent No. 1-University in reply to the writ petition filed on its behalf has admitted that respondent No.1-College is associated with the said respondent and that the provisions of First Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh University Chapter XXXVIII Appendix A, Paragraph-38.5 B(d), Part-I governs the age of retirement of teachers working in the department of self financing affiliated colleges. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners during the course of arguments has drawn our attention to the judgments Annexures P-6, P-7 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereas Annexure P-8 by a Division Bench in LPA which was filed against the judgment Annexure P-7 to the writ petition CWP No. 4811 of 2015 and on the basis thereof urged that the issue of retirement of the employees of respondent No. 4-College is covered in favour of the petitioners thereby. Be it stated that the judgment Annexure P-6 pertains to the degree college being run by respondent No.2-trust, whereas the judgment Annexure P-7 to Shri Shakti Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya being run by Managing Committee of Shri Naina Devi Ji Trust. Annexure P-9 is interim order passed in CWP No. 4349 of 2015 and pertains to respondent No. 4-college. Admittedly respondent No.4-college is associated with respondent No.1-Himachal Pradesh University. The appointment of the petitioners as Lecturers has been approved by the said respondent. In the matter of service conditions of the teaching staff of respondent No.4-College, the provisions contained under the First Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh are being followed. Therefore, when there is provisions of retirement of teaching staff at the age of 60 years in the Rules, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as has been extended to the similarly situated persons i.e. petitioners in the writ petitions/LPA decided vide judgments Annexures P-6 to P8. Therefore, when there is provisions of retirement of teaching staff at the age of 60 years in the Rules, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as has been extended to the similarly situated persons i.e. petitioners in the writ petitions/LPA decided vide judgments Annexures P-6 to P8. It is worth mentioning that even in the case of respondent No. 4-College a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while extending the benefit of the judgments Annexures P-6 and P-7 and also of Annexure P-8 has directed the respondents to retire petitioner Om Dutt Sharma (CWP No. 762/2017) at the age of 60 years by allowing the writ petition vide judgment dated 22.4.2017. 5. Therefore, the point in issue is covered by the judgment referred to hereinabove in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, we allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years or on completion of the semester, whichever is earlier. 6. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.