JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appeared for the Proforma Respondent No. 5 although the notice was duly served on him. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the respondents/Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram refusing to count his period of officiating service in Grade IV (Driver), w.e.f. 06.09.1990 till 06.08.1993, for the purpose of upgradation to the post of Driver, Grade- II and for his subsequent upgradation to Driver, Grade-I and further, to Driver, Special Grade with all service benefits. Facts: 3. The petitioner's contentions, in brief, are that by a common Office Order, dated 6.9.1990, he was appointed as an Officiating IVth Grade for utilization of his services as Driver along with 6 (six) others in the respondents' Department of Health Services, Mizoram. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Driver against sanctioned post by an Office Order, dated 06.08.1993. Thereafter, on completion of 5 (five) years of regular service as Driver, he was promoted to Driver, Grade- II (nonfunctional) w.e.f. 06.08.1998 and confirmed his service w.e.f. 06.08.1993, that is, the date of his regular appointment to the post of Driver. On completion of 15 (fifteen) years of service, the petitioner, who was functioning as Driver, Grade-II, was upgraded to Driver, Grade-I (non functional) w.e.f. 01.08.2008. In the meantime, the Government of Mizoram framed the Mizoram Driver Recruitment Rules, 2009 ('R/R, 2009' for short), repealing all the previous rules pertaining to the cadre post of Driver in the State of Mizoram, which came into force on 04.06.2009, with the publication of the aforesaid Rules in the Mizoram Gazette. As per the aforesaid R/R, 2009, those Drivers in Grade- Hi/Entry Grade having 5 (five) years of regular service are made eligible for promotion to the post of Driver, Grade-II, and those Driver, Grade-II having 10 (ten) years of regular service are made eligible for promotion to the post of Driver, Grade-I and likewise, the Driver, Grade- I having 25 (twenty five) years of regular service reckoned from the date of appointment in Driver, Grade- III are made eligible for promotion to the post of Driver, Special Grade, by selection method. The petitioner has contended that though similarly situated with the Proforma Respondent No. 5, he was not given the benefit of counting of his officiating service period in Grade IV utilized as Driver throughout for the purpose of determining his length of service as Driver for upgradation to the higher grade of Driver, Special Grade. Arguments: 4. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner was not appointed to the post of Driver on substantive capacity in the year 1990, his services were utilized as Driver under the respondents No. 3 and 4 for all purposes w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment on 06.09.1990 till the date of his confirmation on 06.08.1993. Mr. Malhotra further submits that the Proforma Respondent No. 5, who was allowed to officiate as Driver w.e.f. 01.09.1990, the post to which he was appointed was a Grade IV and as such, there was no substantial difference between the appointment of the petitioner and the said Proforma Respondent No. 5. Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also submits that in the letter, dated 06.09.1990, issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Govt. of Mizoram, it was specifically shown that the appointment of the proforma respondent No. 5 was made against IVth Grade post, but as officiating Driver w.e.f. 1.9.1990. According to Mr. Malhotra, since both the petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 5 were officiating Drivers holding the substantive IVth Grade since 01.09.1990, there was no substantial difference between the appointments of the petitioner and the said Proforma Respondent No. 5, for which reason, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit of upgradation in service as Driver at par with the Proforma Respondent No. 5. In this regard, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in (2014) 4 SCC 583 . 5. Per contra, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents, submits that the officiating period of the petitioner as IVth Grade could not be counted by the Govt. of Mizoram as his service is to be counted from the date, he was appointed to the post of Driver, that is, 06.08.1993 following the provisions of the relevant R/R, 2009. Ms. of Mizoram as his service is to be counted from the date, he was appointed to the post of Driver, that is, 06.08.1993 following the provisions of the relevant R/R, 2009. Ms. Fambawl contends that the petitioner was appointed as officiating IVth Grade on 06.09.1990 and not for the post of Driver, but only utilized his services as Driver since he had a driving licence to drive vehicles. According to Ms. Fambawl, the petitioner was subsequently appointed on regular basis to the post of Driver on 6.8.1993, when he was holding the post of Grade IV on officiating basis. On 06.08.1998, Ms. Fambawl contends, the petitioner was promoted to Driver, Grade II (non functional), after completion of 5 (five) years of regular service in the post of Driver, Grade III as per the relevant R/R, 2009, which prescribes 5 (five) years of regular service in the post of Driver, Grade III for promotion to Driver, Grade II. According to Ms. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate, confirmation to the said post has no connection to the promotion from Driver, Grade III to Driver, Grade II and as such, the services of the petitioner rendered as officiating Driver, holding the substantive post of Grade IV was not taken into account Ms. Fambawl Submits that the petitioner was not appointed to the post of Driver on substantive capacity in the year 1990, but in the year 1993. Ms. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate, emphatically contends that though the services of the petitioner was utilized as Driver from the initial officiating appointment in 1990, he was appointed to the post of Grade IV, and as such, the Govt. of Mizoram is not in a position to count the period of his officiating Grade IV as required criteria of qualifying service for promotion, as per the provisions of the relevant R/R, 2009, stipulates 5 (five) years regular service in the post of Driver, Grade III. Ms. Fambawl further contends that the said Proforma Respondent No. 5 was allowed to officiate as Driver w.e.f. 01.09.1990, while he was officiating in Grade IV. The Govt. of Mizoram made regularization of the officiating service period w.e.f 01.09.1990, that is, the date on which he was appointed on officiating capacity as Driver and hence, his officiating service was counted towards the qualifying service for promotion to the next higher grade of Driver. Ms. The Govt. of Mizoram made regularization of the officiating service period w.e.f 01.09.1990, that is, the date on which he was appointed on officiating capacity as Driver and hence, his officiating service was counted towards the qualifying service for promotion to the next higher grade of Driver. Ms. Fambawl, therefore, submits that the petition may be rejected. 6. I have given due consideration to the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the averments made in the petition along with the documents annexed therewith as well as the affidavit-in-opposition. Appreciation: 7. It may be mentioned that the R/R, 2009 came into force with its publication in the Mizoram Gazette on 04.06.2009. The Annexure-I appended to the aforesaid R/R, 2009 provides that those Drivers in Grade III/Entry Grade having 5 (five) years of regular service are eligible for promotion to Driver, Grade II, and those Drivers in Grade II having 10 (ten) years of regular service are eligible for promotion to Driver, Grade I and further, Driver in Grade I having 25 (twenty five) years regular service from Driver, Grade III are eligible for promotion to Driver, Special Grade by selection method. It is noticed that the petitioner along with 6 others were appointed as Officiating IVth Grade vide Office Order No. 336/90, dated 06.09.1990, for utilizing their services as Driver and was posted at Haulawng vide Annexure-I. The petitioner along with the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and 4 (four) others, who were qualified Drivers, were entertained in IVth Grade post and allowed to officiate in the post of Driver w.e.f. 01.09.1990, for a period of 6 (six) months initially, subject to extension on the basis of working performance, vide Annexure-A1, the Office Order No. 335/90, dated 06.09.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Driver, Grade III against sanctioned post, while he was continuing his service in Grade IV, vide the Office Older No. 321/93, dated 06.08.1993, issued by the Director of Health Services, Mizoram vide Annexure- II and after rendering 5 (five) years of regular service in the aforesaid post of Driver, Grade III, he was upgraded to Driver, Grade II (non functional) w.e.f. 06.08.1998 by Office Order bearing Memo No. A.11016/1/95-DHSE, dated 14.08.1998, issued by the Director of Health Services, Mizoram vide Annexure-III. Subsequently, by an order issued vide Annexure IV, bearing Memo No. A.31012/5/2000-DHSE, dated 11.10.2000, the petitioner's service was confirmed w.e.f. 06.08.1993, that is, the date of his specific appointment as Driver, Grade III and other 16 (sixteen) Drivers were confirmed in service w.e.f. different dates shown therein. The aforesaid date of confirmation of the petitioner as Driver on 6.8.1993 was considered w.e.f. the date of his appointment as Driver against sanctioned post, vide Annexure-II, the Office Order, No. 321/93, dated 06.08.1993 and he, who was holding the post of Driver, Grade II was upgraded to the post of Driver, Grade I (non functional), w.e.f. 01.08.2008, after he put regular service in the post of Driver, Grade II for 15 (fifteen) years vide Annexure- V, the Office Order, dated 18.07.2008, issued by the Director of Health Services, Mizoram. 8. It is seen that the DPC meeting held on 21.01.2000 recommended regularization of the services of 55 number of officiating Drivers including the Proforma Respondent No. 5, in order of merit, w.e.f. 21.01.2000, to the post of Driver, Grade- III, vide Annexure-VII. It is further seen that no proposal for consideration for regularization of the service of the petitioner was placed before the DPC, held on 21.01.2000, although his service was exclusively utilized as Driver under the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the date of his initial appointment in Grade-IV on 06.09.1990 (As per Annexure-A1, the date of appointment of the petitioner and the Proforma Respondent No. 5 was 01.09.1990) and continued in that capacity till his confirmation on 06.08.1993, whereas the Proforma Respondent No. 5 along with others, who were appointed in the same capacity for the same purpose w.e.f. 01.09.1990 was considered for regularization of their services as Officiating Driver meaning thereby that the petitioner's service in officiating capacity w.e.f. 6.9.1990 to 06.08.1993 was not considered for his eligibility to higher Grade of Driver, Special Grade. While considering the eligibility of the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and others for regularization to the post of Driver, Grade-in, their past officiating service period was counted from the date of their initial appointment and accordingly, the Under Secretary to the Govt. While considering the eligibility of the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and others for regularization to the post of Driver, Grade-in, their past officiating service period was counted from the date of their initial appointment and accordingly, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Health and Family Welfare Department, conveyed approval of the government for regularization of the officiating appointment of the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and 3 (three) others from the respective dates of their initial appointment, which in respect of the Proforma Respondent No. 5 was shown to be w.e.f. 01.09.1990, vide Annexure- VIII and accordingly, the Director of Health Services, Mizoram, issued the Office Order, vide Memo No. A. 12024/24/04-DHSE, dated 31.05.2005, regularizing their services w.e.f. their respective dates of initial appointment as Driver, Grade-III, vide Annexure-IX. Thereafter, pursuant to the Govt. of Mizoram, Finance Dept. Notification, dated 03.05.1994, the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and two other Drivers, who completed 15 (fifteen) years of regular service in Driver, Grade II were upgraded as Driver, Grade-I (non functional) giving retrospective effect from 01.09.2005, vide Annexure- X and then, again by Office Order, bearing Memo No. A.11015/1/2014-PD/HFW, dated 09.10.2015, issued by the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare Dept., Govt. of Mizoram, based on the recommendation of the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC), held on 23.9.2015, 19 (nineteen) number of Drivers (non functional) and in terms of the provisions of the R/R, 2009, having completed 25 (twenty five) years of satisfactory continuous service, upgraded their services to Driver, Special Grade. 9. Thus, the moot question of law that falls for consideration in this proceeding is whether the officiating service period rendered by the petitioner as Driver w.e.f. 6.9.1990 till 6.8.1993 for the purpose of his upgradation to Driver, Grade II and subsequent upgradation to Driver, Grade-I and Driver, Special Grade, ought to have been counted in terms of the R/R, 2009 as has been counted in respect of the Proforma Respondent No. 5? The relevant provisions for promotional avenues of Driver Grade III to Driver, Special Grade are stated in Para No. 7 above. The relevant provisions for promotional avenues of Driver Grade III to Driver, Special Grade are stated in Para No. 7 above. It is noticed that the initial appointments of the petitioner and the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and others were made on regular basis as qualified Officiating IVth Grade for utilizing their services as Driver, w.e.f. 1.9.1990 and the petitioner's service was regularized as Driver, w.e.f. 6.8.1993, meaning thereby that although he was holding the post of regular IVth Grade, his service as Driver was utilized throughout since the date of his initial appointment on officiating basis as in the case of similarly situated Proforma Respondent No. 5. To speak it differently, and more clearly, although both the petitioner and the Proforma Respondent No. 5 were not holding the substantive post of Driver, their services were recognized and utilized as Driver from their initial appointment on 1.9.1990 and as a corollary implication, they continued their services as IVth Grade since 1.9.1990, vide Annexure-A1, but rendered their services as Driver, for all purposes, for which reason, the petitioner's service was regularized by appointing him to the substantive post of Driver w.e.f. 06.08.1993 only. 10. However, in Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 157 , the Apex Court, in the context of facts in hand, observed that the officers were promoted although without following the procedure prescribed under the rules, but they continuously worked for a long period of nearly 15-20 years on the posts without being reverted. The period of their continuous officiation was directed to be counted for seniority as it was held that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. There is considerable force in this view also. We, therefore, confirm the principle of counting towards seniority the period of continuous officiation following an appointment made in accordance with the rules prescribed for regular substantive appointments in the service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, among others, in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra), reiterated the aforesaid principle and held that where the appointment is ad-hoc and made as a stop-gap arrangement, in which case, officiation in such post cannot be taken into consideration for seniority, however, when the appointees first started officiating followed by regularization of their service and continued in service uninterruptedly, the period of officiating shall be taken into consideration for seniority. 11. 11. Applying the ratio of the above decisions of the Apex Court, this Court finds that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances that emerged in the instant petition and based on equity, it is not correct to say that the petitioner's case cannot be considered for upgradation in the post of Driver as per R/R, 2009 for the sole reason that he was initially appointed as Officiating Grade IV employee, on 06.09.1990 and not for the post of Driver does not certainly hold the field when similarly situated incumbent Proforma Respondent No. 5 has been upgraded to Driver, Special Grade after taking into account of his officiating period since his initial appointment on 01.09.1990 vide Annexure- XI, dated 09.10.2015, which happened to be the date of appointment of the petitioner in the same capacity. The uneven treatment in promotion/upgradation in the cadre post of Driver by the respondent/authority appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory after he put continuous service for more than 25 years since his initial appointment on 01.09.1990 in officiating capacity for consideration to the post of Driver, Special Grade by selection, as has been considered favourably in the case of the Proforma Respondent No. 5, who is presently holding the post of Driver, Special Grade. The respondents/authority, however, without assigning any reason regretted counting of the petitioner's initial officiating service period in IVth Grade as Driver from 1.9.1990 to 6.8.1993 for the purpose of upgradation to higher grade, Driver, Special Grade vide Annexure-XII. Conclusion: 12. Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, the writ petition stands allowed directing the respondents to count the petitioner's officiating services as Driver w.e.f. 1.9.1990 (Annexure-A1) till 6.8.1993 (Annexure- IV) for the purpose of his upgradation to Driver, Grade II and subsequent upgradation to Driver, Grade I and Driver, Special Grade with all service benefits, as prayed for, strictly following the provisions in the Mizoram Driver Recruitment Rules, 2009, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall be furnished by the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.