JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Brief facts, which engages consideration in the present writ petition are, that the petitioner has come up with the case that he was inducted into the services of the respondents, as CT Grade teacher w.e.f. 8th July 1987. But, later on, as a consequence of the enforcement of the Government Order dated 9th January 1992, which was issued by the Directorate of Education, the CT Cadre, was declared as to be a “dying Cadre”, and no future appointments, as against the CT Grade cadre were to be made and further it was directed that the teachers, who were then already working in the CT Grade, their services would be merged into LT Grade post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a consequence of the declaration of CT Grade, as a dying cadre by the government order dated 9th June 1992 and with creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the State of Uttarakhand had issued a Government Order No. 793 dated 3rd June 2005, in which, the cut-off date for the purposes of merger of services from CT Grade to LT Grade was provided, that five years of satisfactory services as on the date i.e. 9th February 1991. Only those CT Grade teachers, who have completed five years of satisfactory services, as on 9th February 1991 onwards, were held to be entitled to be extended with the benefit of the consequence of the merger of their services to the LT Grade. 3. The petitioner has been merged in the LT Cadre, but he has not been given with the benefit owing to the embargo, which was created by the G.O. No. 793 dated 3rd June 2005. Agitating his grievances, the petitioner had earlier approached the writ Court, by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 392 of 2011, which was disposed of on 20th March 2017, with the direction to the respondents, to decide the representation of the petitioner for treating him as to be an LT Grade teacher, as a consequence of his services merged into LT Grade, after the declaration of CT Grade as a dying cadre by the Government order dated 9th February 1992. 4. 4. The writ petition was disposed of and ultimately the respondent i.e. the Director, Secondary Education, by virtue of an impugned order dated 22nd August 2017, had rejected the representation of the petitioner and consequently, had declined the extension of benefit similar as of service as an LT Grade teacher, after the merger of services of the petitioner because of the implications, which were imposed by the Government Order No. 606/XXIV/2/2005 dated 3rd June 2005, as well as Government Order No. 793/XXIV(2)/05 dated 3rd June 2005, which had provided for that the extension of benefit as a consequence of the merger of CT Grade, to LT Grade, would only be available to the merged teachers on completion of five years of satisfactory service, as provided by the cutoff, given in the aforesaid Government Orders i.e. dated 9th February 1991. Accordingly, in compliance of the judgement dated 20th March 2017, the Director had declined to extend the benefit to the petitioner, owing to the fact that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite conditions, as provided in the Government Order Numbers 606 and 793 respectively, as referred to herein above. 5. Though, the fact, which is apparent on record, is that despite of notices being issued to the petitioner, to put in appearance for the purposes of hearing him while deciding his representation, in compliance of the judgment of 20th March 2017, the petitioner has not appeared before the respondents, but his non appearance in itself, will not give the liberty to the respondents to pass an order in contravention to the provisions of law. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the decision though it has been rendered in his absence, resulting to rejecting his representation for the purposes of extension of benefit as a consequence of the merger of his services into LT Grade, but still his absence will not disown the liability on part of the respondents to comply with the judgement and the parameters which had been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, which later on stood affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. He contends that the propriety of the Government Order dated 3rd June 2005, was put to challenge in a Writ Petition (M/S) No. 932 of 2005, Uttaranchal Madhymik Shikshak Sangh Vs. 7. He contends that the propriety of the Government Order dated 3rd June 2005, was put to challenge in a Writ Petition (M/S) No. 932 of 2005, Uttaranchal Madhymik Shikshak Sangh Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, wherein a prayer was made for quashing the aforesaid Government Order dated 3rd June 2005, so far it related to extension of benefit of merger, into LT Grade with effect from 9th February 1991, as to be arbitrary. 8. The Division Bench of this Court by the judgement rendered on 1st December 2006, had allowed the writ petition and the Government Order, referred to in the impugned order dated 22nd August 2017 was quashed. Being aggrieved against the judgement of the Division Bench dated 1st December 2006, a Review Petition was preferred being, Review Application No. 238 of 2007, which too was dismissed on 8th March 2007. 9. Not even that. As against the judgement of the Division Bench, quashing the impact of the Government Order dated 3rd June 2005, the respondents had preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, being SLP (Civil) No. 1220/1121 of 2011, which too was dismissed by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 14th February 2011. 10. The consequential legal effect of the dismissal of the SLP and the quashing the Government Order by the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1st December, 2006, would be that the aforesaid Government Order became non-existent in the eyes of law with the affirmation of the judgement of the Division Bench by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. In that eventuality, the reason, which has been assigned by the respondents in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of benefit of his services, as a consequence of merger of his services into the LT Grade till he had attained the age of superannuation on 31st March 2017, it has been rather foundationed in the impugned order on the basis of the implications of Government Order Numbers 606 and 793 respectively, as issued on 3rd June 2005, which stood quashed by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 12. 12. In that eventuality, this Court is of the opinion that the very foundation of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for extension of benefit of his services as a consequence of his merger of service into the LT Grade, is based upon a nonexistent Government Order, which didn’t had any judicial life, after the judgement of the Division Bench and that of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. In that eventuality, this Court is of the view that in fact the impugned order dated 22nd August 2017, as passed by the Director, Secondary Education is without application of mind for the reason being that the Director, Education was very well one of the contesting party in the proceedings, which were held before the Division Bench and before the Hon’ble Apex Court too, where the Secretary, Secondary Education had put a challenge to the Division Bench’s judgment, hence the knowledge of the judgment aforesaid was very well attributed to the Director, Secondary Education and hence he could not have derived the implications of the two Government Orders referred to in the impugned order to deny the benefit of the petitioner for extension of the benefit of the LT Grade teacher w.e.f. the date of his merger of services or w.e.f. 8th July 1987, with all consequential benefits despite having the knowledge that the government orders, which had been referred to deny the benefit to the petitioner, stood quashed by judgment of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. Since the very basis of the impugned order is a non-existing Government Orders, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the order dated 22nd August 2017, is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of LT Grade teacher to the petitioner; as a consequence of the merger of his services into the LT Grade w.e.f. the date of his initial induction i.e. 8th July 1987, and it is hereby further directed, that the respondent No. 4, would ensure its compliance within a period of six weeks from the date of service of the certified copy of this judgement and report back its compliance to this Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of the decision, as directed to be taken by the Director, Secondary Education.