JUDGMENT : The appellant is the writ-respondent, who aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned writ Court has filed the instant appeal. 2. The writ petitioners (respondents herein) approached this Court by filing CWP No.1595 of 2019 wherein they prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “I. That the Petitioners be given regular employment from the date of passing the test after completing the training period with all consequential benefits; or/and II. That the period served as apprentice till date may be counted for service benefits the regularization of the Petitioners.” 3. As regards the second relief regarding regularization of the services of the petitioners, the same was negated by the learned writ Court vide its findings recorded in para-5 of the judgment and the same have attained finality. 4. It is only the actual financial benefits attached to the posts that have been directed to be paid to the writ petitioners and what prevailed upon the learned writ Court to grant such relief is the Resolution No. 18 passed by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 22.07.2020 wherein it was resolved to convert the services of the writ petitioners apprentice Clerks on contract basis with effect from 04.06.2018 on notional basis. 5. It has come on record that the writ petitioners were then absorbed on contract basis in Clerical cadre. Therefore, the controversy was limited only to the grant of financial benefits. The learned writ Court was of the view that once the respondent-Bank itself has decided to absorb the services of the writ petitioners and the proforma respondents therein on contract basis in the Clerical cadre with effect from 04.06.2018 in terms of Clause 10 of the H.P. State Coo. Agri. & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. Kasumpti, Shimla-9, Scheme (for short ‘Scheme’), it could not have denied the actual benefits attached to the posts. 6. Clause 10 of the Scheme reads as under:- “(10) Right of regularization:- The apprentices so engaged will have no right of regularization in the Bank. However, after completion of training they will be subjected to a written test conducted by the Bank at its level and in case of clearance of test, they may be absorbed; if found fit, in the Bank against the vacant post of clerical cadre i.e. Recovery Supervisor/Office Asstt./within the sanctioned strength, as provided under the Bank Employees Service Rule 4(e).” 7. We are in complete agreement with the learned writ Court when it observes that the writ petitioners after having cleared the written test had become eligible for absorption on contact basis against the posts of apprentice Clerks in the year 2018 itself and as such, the benefits ought to have been given to them and proforma respondents from that date and in case the same were to be denied, then it ought to have given reasonable and plausible reasons for such denial. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that merely because there was a vacancy in the Bank, the writ petitioners would be entitled to the pay from the date of absorption on contract basis with effect from 01.08.2000 or from any other date interior to the same. 9. Strong reliance in support of such contention is then placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.K. Vadera and others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 wherein it was observed that “there is no law or rule under which the promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant”. 10. We find no merit in this contention and the reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is clearly misplaced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of promotion and as per settled law mere existence of vacancy per se does not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post are specifically prescribed under the rules when the vacancy to the promotional post is to be filled through selection process. It is in this background that the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. 11. Here is a case where the writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis after following the rules. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioners were entitled to the grant of financial benefits that had been determined by the appellant-Bank but on notional basis. It is in this background that the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. 11. Here is a case where the writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis after following the rules. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioners were entitled to the grant of financial benefits that had been determined by the appellant-Bank but on notional basis. However, there is no reason forthcoming as to why the benefits were being granted on notional basis as against the actual benefits attached to the posts against which the writ petitioners and proforma respondents had been absorbed in the Clerical cadre with effect from 04.06.2018. 12. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, this appeal sans merit and the same is dismissed, along with pending applications, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.