ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: I) That the impugned office order dated 30.06.2018 at Annexure P-9, whereby the claim of the applicant has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. II) That the respondents may kindly be directed to confer the status of the post of Supervisor upon the applicants w.e.f. from the date of completion of 10 years of daily wages services with all consequential benefits towards fixation of pay, seniority and arrears of salary. 2. Petitioners were engaged as daily waged Mates with effect from September, 1987, August 1984, August 1982, September 1987, June 1985, July 1986, May 1985 and September 1986 respectively. Their services were regularized with effect from 29.01.1998, 4.7.1996, 13.1.1994, 29.1.1998, 4.7.1996, 29.1.1998, 4.7.1996 and 29.1.1998 respectively. Petitioners after prolonged litigation were granted the benefit of the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 18.4.2007. This benefit was accorded to petitioners vide office order dated 9.9.2014. 3. On 18.9.2014, learned Single Judge of this Court passed judgment in CWP No.2521 of 2012, titled Ramesh Chand Thakur vs. Municipal Corporation and thereby directed the grant of benefit of regularization to petitioner in that case on completion of 8 years of service. This judgment was assailed by Municipal Corporation, Shimla in LPA No. 55 of 2015 unsuccessfully. In LPA No.55 of 2015, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal of Municipal Corporation, Shimla clarified that the payment of arrears would be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. 4. Consequent upon passing of aforesaid judgment in LPA No. 55 of 2015, Municipal Corporation, Shimla granted the benefit of regularization to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur, w.e.f. 16.4.2001 in the category of Supervisor. Petitioners have contended that on the basis of the benefits granted to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur, similar benefits were allowed by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla to other similarly situated persons including Ram Rattan etc. Petitioners being similarly situated also claimed the same and similar benefits but were not allowed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla. 5. Petitioners approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 6048 of 2016, which came to be decided on 8.9.2017. The learned Tribunal was pleased to pass the following orders: “4. Petitioners being similarly situated also claimed the same and similar benefits but were not allowed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla. 5. Petitioners approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 6048 of 2016, which came to be decided on 8.9.2017. The learned Tribunal was pleased to pass the following orders: “4. The applicants claim the benefit of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2521 of 2012, Shri Ramesh Chand Thakur versus Municipal Corporation, decided on 18.09.2014, Annexure A-5, as upheld in LPA No.55 of 2015, Municipal Corporation, Shimla versus Ramesh Chand Thakur, decided on 07.04.2016, Annexure A-6 and CWP No. 2415 of 2012, Mathu Ram versus Municipal Corporation and others, decided on 31.7.2014. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the said judgments have become final and implemented also. 5. If that be so, the present original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the respective cases of the applicants also, strictly in view of the principles laid down in the judgments cited hereinabove, within a period of two months from today. The applicants shall produce a certified copy of this order as well as copy of the judgments referred to above, before the respondents/competent authority within a week.” 6. On 30.6.2018, respondent No.1 rejected the claims of the petitioners. Aggrieved against such rejection, petitioners again approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 4622 of 2018. On closure of the learned Tribunal, the said O.A. stood transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 4952 of 2020. 7. Petitioners have alleged discrimination at the hands of the respondents. Their case is that initially also they were granted the benefit of the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 18.4.2007 on the basis of such benefit granted to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and also Sh. Ram Rattan etc. Petitioners contended that since they were similarly situated to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc., the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting their claim vide office order dated 30.6.2018 (Annexure P-9) is wrong, illegal and discriminatory. 8. Respondent No.1 in its reply has stated that the petitioners were considered for regularization as Supervisor w.e.f. 18.4.2007 against the created posts of Supervisors as there was no post of Supervisor existing in Municipal Corporation, Shimla prior to 18.4.2007. 8. Respondent No.1 in its reply has stated that the petitioners were considered for regularization as Supervisor w.e.f. 18.4.2007 against the created posts of Supervisors as there was no post of Supervisor existing in Municipal Corporation, Shimla prior to 18.4.2007. It has also been averred by respondent No.1 that the petitioners cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue of regularization from retrospective date as they had earlier also filed legal proceedings in which such claim was not raised. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 10. The case of the petitioners is mainly based upon the assertion that since Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc., who were similarly situated to the petitioners, were granted the benefits of regularization as Supervisor w.e.f. 16.4.2001, on completion of 8 years of daily waged services, petitioners cannot be singled out and discriminated in the same and similar set of facts. 11. We find merit in the contention of petitioners as respondent No.1 has not been able to carve out a case of placing petitioners on a separate pedestal than Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc. Once the benefit of regularization in service to the aforesaid Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc. was granted w.e.f. 16.4.2001, the same could not be denied to the petitioners on the whims of respondent No.1. Petitioners were granted the benefit of regularization as Supervisors w.e.f. 18.4.2007, only on the same date on which date Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and subsequently to Sh. Ram Rattan etc. were initially regularized as Supervisors. That being so, respondent No.1 cannot be subsequently allowed to change its stand when it comes to grant of the regularization of petitioners from due date i.e. on completion of requisite period of daily waged services. The matter in this regard is no more res integra after the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others, CWP No. 2415 of 2012 dated 31.7.2014 as the same has attained finality having been upheld even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As regards the plea of respondent No.1 with respect to non-existence of posts of Supervisor before 18.4.2007, that should have been applicable to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc. also. As regards the plea of respondent No.1 with respect to non-existence of posts of Supervisor before 18.4.2007, that should have been applicable to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc. also. Once the said other persons were given the benefit from date prior to 18.4.2007, the petitioners are also entitled for same treatment. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed, office order dated 30.6.2018 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside being wrong, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Shimla is directed to confer the status of the post of Supervisor upon the petitioners with effect from the date they completed ten years of daily waged services with all consequential benefits. It is, however, clarified that petitioners shall be entitled to the arrears only for a period of three years prior to filing of this petition following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 1998 SC 2819 . 13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, with no order as to costs.