ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “(b) That respondents be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner as appointment on regular establish from the date of his appointment i.e. with effect from November, 2006. (c) That the respondents be directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner in view of his regularization with effect from November, 2006 i.e. increments, regular pay scale and all other benefits which are available to regular employees etc.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Una, District Una, H.P. vide order dated 6.11.2006, on contract basis. Petitioner is a specially abled person, having 90% permanent disability on account of hearing impairment. The appointment of petitioner was made against the post, reserved for persons with disability. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that his appointment on contract basis was improper. As per petitioner, at the time of his appointment, there was no provision in the then existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Peon in the Department of Social and Women Welfare, where under the appointment could be made on contract basis. The said rules provided only for the regular appointments. 3. In response, the stand taken by the respondents is that the appointment of petitioner was made in pursuance to approval of the Government, conveyed vide letter dated 28.4.2006 (Annexure R-1). Further the case of respondents is that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Peons were amended vide notification dated 19.4.2007 and the mode of appointment was prescribed as contract basis. It has also been maintained by the respondents that though the appointment of petitioner was prior to the issuance of notification dated 19.4.2007, yet the amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules would apply to the case of petitioner, as amendment of such rules was already in process since 2004. Even in the approval letter, issued by the State Government on 28.4.2006, there were directions to carry out amendments in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, if needed. 4. I have heard Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records carefully. 5. Even in the approval letter, issued by the State Government on 28.4.2006, there were directions to carry out amendments in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, if needed. 4. I have heard Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records carefully. 5. The Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Peons, issued by Social and Women Welfare Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh were notified on 20.5.1998 (for short ‘1998 Rules’). As per these rules, there were 124 sanctioned posts of Peons. The prescribed mode of recruitment was 100% by transfer, failing which, by direct recruitment. These rules came to be amended vide notification dated 19.4.2007 (for short ‘2007 Rules’). Clause 10 of 1998 rules was also amended, whereby the mode of recruitment was prescribed as 100% by transfer, failing which, by direct recruitment or on contract basis. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon vide order dated 6.11.2006. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, the 1998 Rules were in force. Since, these rules did not prescribe contract appointment as one of the modes of recruitment, appointment of petitioner made on contract basis cannot be upheld Petitioner had a right to be appointed strictly in accordance with 1998 Rules, which prescribed recruitment on regular basis only. All 124 posts of Peons were regular sanctioned posts. Merely, because the Government had issued communication dated 28.4.2006, conveying its approval for filling up of four vacant posts of Peons, reserved for physically handicapped persons on contract basis, 1998 Rules were not obliterated. 1998 Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it is more than settled that the statutory rules cannot be superseded by administrative instructions. 7. Further, the 2007 Rules could not be applied retrospectively. The stand of the respondents that since the amended Recruitment & Promotion Rules were under process since 2004, it would apply to the case of the petitioner, deserves outright rejection. 8. Another question is whether appointment of persons with disabilities, on contract basis, can be said to be in consonance with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘1995 Act’)? In my considered view the answer has to be in negative. 9. 8. Another question is whether appointment of persons with disabilities, on contract basis, can be said to be in consonance with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘1995 Act’)? In my considered view the answer has to be in negative. 9. The 1995 Act has been enacted with most laudable object to provide equal opportunities to the persons with disabilities. Section 32 of the Act provides for identification of posts, which can be reserved for persons with disabilities whereas, Section 33 provide for reservation of such posts, which reads as under: “33. Reservation of posts - Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from: (i) blindness or low vision. (ii) hearing impairment. (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 10. Thus, there is a clear mandate of law to every appropriate government to appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each is mandatorily required to be reserved for persons suffering from hearing impairment, blindness and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blinds and Others, 2013 (10) SCC 772 interpreted the purpose of 1995 Act as under: “(24) Although, the Disability Rights Movement in India commenced way back in 1977, of which Respondent No. 1 herein was an active participant, it acquired the requisite sanction only at the launch of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons in 1993-2002, which gave a definite boost to the movement. The main need that emerged from the meet was for a comprehensive legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. In this light, the crucial legislation was enacted in 1995 viz. The main need that emerged from the meet was for a comprehensive legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. In this light, the crucial legislation was enacted in 1995 viz. the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which empowers persons with disabilities and ensures protection of their rights. The Act, in addition to its other prospects, also seeks for better employment opportunities to persons with disabilities by way of reservation of posts and establishment of a Special Employment Exchange for them. For the same, Section 32 of the Act stipulates for identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. Section 33 provides for reservation of posts and Section 36 thereof provides that in case a vacancy is not filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability, in any recruitment year such vacancy is to be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year. The difference of opinion between the appellants and the respondents arises on the point of interpretation of these sections. (25) It is the stand of the Union of India that the Act provides for only 3% reservation in the vacancies in the posts identified for the disabled persons and not on the total cadre strength of the establishment whereas Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned senior counsel (R-1) appearing in person submitted that accepting the interpretation proposed by the Union of India will flout the policy of reservation encompassed under Section 33 of the Act. He further submitted that the High Court has rightly held that the reservation of 3% for differently abled persons in conformity with the Act should have to be computed on the basis of the total strength of a cadre and not just on the basis of the vacancies available in the posts that are identified for differently abled persons, thereby declaring certain clauses of the OM dated 29.12.2005 as unacceptable and contrary to the mandate of Section 33 of the Act.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-52 of above noted judgment further mandated as under: “Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-52 of above noted judgment further mandated as under: “Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz. “computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength” which is the intention of the legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29.12.2005, which are contrary to the above reasoning are struck down and we direct the appropriate Government to issue new Office Memorandums in consistent with the decision rendered by this Court.” 13. Thus, keeping in view the object of 1995 Act there is no hesitation to hold that the purpose of reservation of posts under Section 33 of 1995 Act will not be fulfilled by making temporary, ad-hoc or contract appointments. Such an interpretation will make the very purpose of 1995 Act otiose. The reservation mandated under Section 33 of the Act will necessarily mean to provide employment, which has permanency attached to it and that can only be by way of regular appointment. 14. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, admittedly, petitioner is suffering from 90% hearing impairment and also was appointed against the backlog vacancies for persons with disability. Thus, petitioner is entitled for all protection as envisaged under 1995 Act. View from any perspective the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on regular basis from very inception. 15. In view of the above discussions, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 6.11.2006. The respondents are further directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No. 2. 16. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.