ORDER : Since, the issues raised and reliefs claimed in all these petitions are the same, they were heard together and the same are being disposed of vide this common order. However, facts, averments and documents annexed with CWPOA No. 4421 of 2019 are being discussed. 2. Briefly stated the facts, shorn of unnecessary details, but relevant for the adjudication of the cases at hand are that vide advertisement No. 05/2002, dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-1), respondent Department advertised 88 posts of Assistant Librarian, wherein essential qualification for the said post was matriculation with diploma/certificate in Library Sciences. Being fully eligible, petitioners herein applied for the aforesaid post but the selection process could not be carried forward as such, no appointment came to be made. In the year 2009, respondents again advertised posts of Assistant Librarian vide advertisement No. 14/2009, dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-2), wherein total number of 82 posts were advertised and essential qualification was matriculation with diploma/certificate in library sciences from recognized Board/University. Most importantly, in the aforesaid advertisement, it specifically came to be mentioned that the candidates, who had applied earlier against post code No. 0123, advertised vide advertisement No. 05/2002, dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-1), need not apply again. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement issued in the year 2009 (Annexure P-2), petitioners herein came to be appointed on contract basis by a common order issued in 2009-10. Subsequently, in the year 2015- 16, vide separate orders, services of the petitioners were regularized. Copies of some of such orders are annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-4. 4. Since the petitioners herein, who claim themselves to be similarly situate to other Assistant Librarians, who stood appointed before promulgation of new recruitment and promotion rules notified in the year 2010, were denied UGC pay scales after regularization, they approached erstwhile Himachal Administrative Tribunal for grant of UGC pay scales vide original applications No. 3858 of 2016 and 6377 of 2016, which were decided on 11.8.2016 and 9.12.2016, respectively. Learned Tribunal below, having taken note of the fact that both the cases detailed herein above are covered by judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 146 of 2009, further affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP having been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, disposed of the aforesaid original applications in terms of the judgment dated 23.12.2015, passed by this court in LPA No. 146 of 2009 alongwith connected matters, with the direction to the respondents that subject to verification of applicants being similarly situate persons as above, benefit of the aforesaid judgment, if the same has attained finality and stands implemented, shall also be extended to them alongwith consequential benefits, without discrimination, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy thereof (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6). 5. After passing of the aforesaid orders by Himachal Administrative Tribunal, petitioners filed representation, Annexure P-7, alongwith certified copy of orders to the respondents. However, respondents vide order issued in January, 2017 (Annexure P-8), rejected the representation on the ground that the services of the petitioners have been regularized in the year 2015-16 and their services are covered under Himachal Pradesh Education Department Assistant Librarian Class III, Non Gazetted Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010 and as such, they cannot claim themselves to be similarly situate persons to those, who were appointed against the post of Assistant Librarian in terms of old Rules. Though the petitioners herein filed execution petition before erstwhile Himachal Administrative Tribunal i.e. Execution Petition No. 45 of 2016, however, the same was withdrawn after passing of order on the representations having been filed by the petitioners, wherein claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they are not similarly situate persons and they were appointed as Assistant Librarian in terms of old Rules. In the aforesaid background, petitioners approached Himachal Administrative Tribunal by way of original applications, which now stand transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA’s, seeking therein following relief (extracted from CWPOA No. 4421 of 2019): “That the applicants may kindly be granted the UGC scale along with grade pay and other allowances from the date of regularization along with 9% interest and along with the cost.” 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The question, which has fallen for adjudication before this Court is, “whether the petitioners are governed by new Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 12.7.2010, Annexure P-11 and whether they can be denied UGC pay scales which are being paid to other similarly situate persons i.e. Assistant Librarians, on the ground that their services were regularized in 2015-16, after promulgation of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 12.7.2010? or ”whether the petitioners belong to same cadre of Assistant Librarians, who have been extended benefit of UGC scale pursuant to judgment in LPA No. 146 of 2017 titled state v. VD Saraswati and others hence entitled to same pay scales as granted to their counterparts in aforesaid appeal” 8. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petitions and has been further canvassed by Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned senior counsel is that new Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified vide Notification dated 12.7.2010, do not have retrospective operation and cannot be applied to the petitioners to defeat their just and rightful claim. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that though the petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the year 2009-2010, but on the basis of advertisement issued by HPSSSB Hamirpur on 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-1), wherein essential qualifications were the same as prescribed in the recruitment and promotion rules notified vide Notification dated 24.5.2000 and the posts were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200/-. He further submitted that the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment and promotion rules notified on 24.5.2000, was as per old rules notified on 24.5.2000 and the recruitment process for batch-wise selection initiated vide requisition dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure RJ-1) was also governed by the same recruitment and promotion rules notified on 24.5.2000. He submitted that new Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified vide Notification dated 12.7.2010 cannot be said to have retrospective operation because, in that event, the recruitment process initiated vide new Recruitment and Promotion Rules would have been abandoned as the candidates having qualification as per 2000 rules were rendered ineligible as per new rules notified in 2010. While inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-13, regularization policy, Mr. Sharma, contended that the regularization was done strictly on the basis of seniority subject to condition that eligibility criteria etc. While inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-13, regularization policy, Mr. Sharma, contended that the regularization was done strictly on the basis of seniority subject to condition that eligibility criteria etc. prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post have been observed at the time of initial recruitment on contract basis. Mr. Sharma, further submitted that if the recruitment of the petitioners was to be governed under the new Rules, they could not have been regularized after promulgation of new Rules in 2010. Lastly Mr. Sharma submitted that otherwise also action of the respondents in denying UGC pay scales to the petitioners is totally arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when it is not in dispute that other similarly situate persons, who were appointed as Assistant Librarians, prior to promulgation of new rules have been granted UGC pay scales. He also submitted that otherwise also, Division Bench of this Court in case titled State v. VD Sarswati, vide judgment dated 23.12.2017, has category held that all the Assistant Librarians constitute one homogenous class as such, there cannot be any discrimination in granting higher pay scales. 9. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners contended that the service of Government employee are governed by set norms framed by State Government therefore, the State has released UGC pay scales to those Assistant Librarians/Librarians, who are appointed on regular basis before 2008 and who are similarly situate persons to those in V.D. Saraswati case, with effect from 1.4.1981. He submitted that since the petitioners were appointed in the year 2009- 2010 on contract basis under revised Recruitment and Promotion Rules, they cannot claim parity with the persons, who stood appointed on regular basis before 2008. He submitted that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified in December, 1973 were repealed by Himachal Pradesh Higher Education Department, Assistant Librarians Class III Non Gazetted Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2010, which were applicable on the date of regularizations of Assistant Librarians in question and as such, petitioners are entitled for pay scale provided in the Rules of 2010. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to decision rendered by Division Bench of this court in V.D. Saraswati supra, Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that UGC pay scale was given to Assistant Librarian appointed before 2008 and similarly situate petitioners in LPA No. 146 of 2009. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to decision rendered by Division Bench of this court in V.D. Saraswati supra, Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that UGC pay scale was given to Assistant Librarian appointed before 2008 and similarly situate petitioners in LPA No. 146 of 2009. He submitted that pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 Plus grade pay of Rs.6000 is not for Assistant Librarians, rather to Librarian College Cadre, which is special scale to said cadre on the analogy of V.D. Saraswati case. He submitted that the pay scale of Librarian College Cadre is Rs.15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay and Department fixed the pay in the scale of Rs.37400- 67000+9000 Grade Pay of those Librarians, College Cadre, who have been awarded said scale by the Government after fulfilling eligibility criteria and norms prescribed by UGC as per their API score. He submitted as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Librarian, the qualification is “Master Degree in Library Science with 55% marks and NET. He submitted that since the petitioners were regularized in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + 2400 grade pay as provided in Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2010, in the years 2015 and 2016, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to benefit of UGC pay scale beyond express provision of Recruitment and Promotion Rules by making reference to V.D. Saraswati supra. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, especially the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, this court finds that the facts as noticed herein above are not in dispute, rather stand admitted in the reply. Petitioners herein, who were diploma holders in Library Sciences were appointed on contract basis in the years 2009-10 as Assistant Librarians pursuant to advertisement issued on 10.2.2002 and then on 17.2.2009 in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + 2400 Grade Pay with initial start of Rs. 9730. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were regularized in the year 2015-16 in the same pay scale. Grouse of the petitioners is that they should have been provided UGC Pay Scale as has been granted to the persons, who were appointed as Assistant Librarians in terms of old rules, which were subsequently repealed and new rules of 2010 came into force. Grouse of the petitioners is that they should have been provided UGC Pay Scale as has been granted to the persons, who were appointed as Assistant Librarians in terms of old rules, which were subsequently repealed and new rules of 2010 came into force. It is not in dispute that the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 10.10.2002 Annexure P-1, whereby applications for 88 posts of Assistant Librarians were invited, was abandoned and thereafter fresh selection process was initiated vide advertisement Annexure P-2, thereby inviting applications for 82 posts of Assistant Librarians in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200. In the said advertisement, it specifically came to be notified that ‘candidate, who had earlier applied under post code 0123 need not apply again’. Record reveals that vide requisition issued on 16.8.2008 (Annexure RJ1) by respondent No.2, Employment Exchanges were requested to sponsor names of eligible candidates for the posts of Assistant Librarians. As per Sr. No. 6A the number of posts was 100 and as per Clause 7(a), essential qualification was, Matriculate or its equivalent recognized Board of School Education/ Institute, with diploma in Library Science from a recognized Institute. B.Lib. Science candidate are/were also eligible for this post. 11. Perusal of aforesaid requisition (page 176) reveals that general candidates upto batch 2000 were eligible and candidate belonging to other categories were eligible upto later years of their batches, meaning thereby requisition was for batch wise recruitment through departmental selection process. Another requisition was issued on 16.9.2008 by respondent No.2 whereby Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board was requested to recommend candidates for 100 posts of Assistant Librarians. Essential qualification as per Clause 10A was that a candidate should be matriculate or its equivalent from a recognized Board/School/Institute with diploma in Library Sciences from recognized institute”. Sr. No. 4(c) of requisition reads as follows : 4(a) Is the post permanent? No. 4(b) is the post temporary Yes. The posts are temporary purely on contract basis 4(c) If so, state They will be initially appointed on contractual basis for one year which may be renewable for another year and thereafter contract will be renewed subsequently for further 3 years subject to good performance. After 5 years, on the basis of good performance they will be considered for regularization in the pay scale of Rs. 4020/- 6200/- 12. After 5 years, on the basis of good performance they will be considered for regularization in the pay scale of Rs. 4020/- 6200/- 12. Second advertisement was issued pursuant to requisition dated 16.9.2008, meaning thereby that the recruitment process for Assistant Librarians initiated by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board vide advertisement dated 10.10.2002 was continued vide second advertisement dated 17.2.2009, which was otherwise issued in continuation of advertisement dated 10.10.2002, wherein essential qualification was prescribed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified vide Notification dated 24.5.2000 and the posts were in prerevised pay scale of Rs.4020-6200. Even recruitment process for batch wise appointment vide requisition dated 16.9.2008 was also governed by same Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 24.5.2000. 13. Vide order dated 19.9.2009, Assistant Librarians were appointed on the recommendations of Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board, vide communication dated 16.9.2008. After aforesaid appointment, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Librarians were notified on 12.7.2010 Annexure P-11. Vide said Notification, the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 grade pay with initial pay of Rs.9880/- was prescribed with the stipulation that Assistant Librarian appointed on contract basis will be paid consolidated fixed contractual amount at the rate of Rs.8310/- per month, which shall be equal to minimum of the pay band+grade pay. As per column 15A. essential qualification was changed in column No.7 which reads as under: 7. Minimum educational & other qualification required for direct recruitment/ Contract appointment. a) Essential Qualification: should be Graduate in any discipline or its equivalent from a recognized Institute with one year Diploma or certificate in Library science/ Library and Information Science from a recognized Board/ University or Graduate in any discipline with Bachelor Degree in Library Science/ Library and Information Science. 14. After promulgation of new rules, Department appointed 77 Assistant Librarians on contact basis on the recommendations of Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board vide order dated 27.10.2010 (179 of paper book). In the aforesaid selection process, petitioners also came to be appointed on contact basis on the recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board. 15. Rule 2 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 12.7.2010 annexure P-2 available at page 92 reads as under: These rules shall come into force from the date of the publication in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh. 16. 15. Rule 2 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 12.7.2010 annexure P-2 available at page 92 reads as under: These rules shall come into force from the date of the publication in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh. 16. It is apparent from the reading of the aforesaid rule that these rules had prospective operation and did not affect selection process initiated prior to promulgation of these Rules. Otherwise previous recruitment process, which was being conducted on the basis of qualification prescribed in old rules, would have been cancelled because essential qualification was changed in new rules. In light of essential qualification in new rules, candidates, being considered under old rules, would have been rendered ineligible. 17. Vide order dated 6.7.2015 (Annexure P-4) Assistant Librarians were regularized in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 grade pay. Vide another Notification dated 27.4.2016 (Annexure P-3), 16 Assistant Librarians were also regularized in same pay scale. 18. Though the petitioners here in were considered for appointment as Assistant Librarians on batch wise basis pursuant to advertisements dated 10.10.2002 and 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) issued by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board, but since they came to be appointed on contract basis after promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 12.7.2010, they have been denied UGC pay scales being paid to the Assistant Librarians, who were appointed prior to the year 2008. Case of the respondent-State is that since the petitioners came to be appointed after promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, they are not entitled to UGC pay scales, which was only paid in the case of Assistant Librarians who were appointed prior to promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, wherein essential qualification was completely changed vis-à-vis rules of 1973, however, there appears to be no merit in the said claim of the respondents, because if the recruitment of petitioner, is/was to be governed under new rules, they could not have been appointed in the year 2010. All the petitioners were regularized as Assistant Librarians vide orders dated 6.7.2015/27.4.2016 Annexure P-4/P-3 in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 grade pay. 19. Even the policy of regularization clearly provides that regularization would be strictly on the basis of seniority subject to the condition that eligibility criteria etc. prescribed in the recruitment and promotion rules for the post have been observed at the time of their initial recruitment on contract. 20. 19. Even the policy of regularization clearly provides that regularization would be strictly on the basis of seniority subject to the condition that eligibility criteria etc. prescribed in the recruitment and promotion rules for the post have been observed at the time of their initial recruitment on contract. 20. It is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioners were not having requisite qualification in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules at the time of their initial appointment on contract basis. No doubt, after promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules 12.7.2010, essential qualification for the post of Assistant Librarian came to be changed, but since it stands established on record that the petitioners herein alongwith other similarly situate persons were appointed as Assistant Librarians on contract basis on the basis of advertisement issued by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board on 10.10.2002, and second advertisement dated 17.10.2009, was initiated by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board Hamirpur under old rules, notified on 24.5.2000, prescribing therein qualifications as possessed by the petitioners, regularization of the petitioner after promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, would not disentitle them from claiming benefit of UGC pay scales, which was being paid to their counterparts appointed as Assistant Librarians in the year 2008 or prior to that. 21. In the present case, entire selection process was never held in abeyance rather, completed as per same process. Some of the petitioners were appointed on 19.10.2009 on batch wise basis on contract basis before promulgation of new rules on 12.7.2010, Otherwise also, petitioners were appointed after promulgation new rules. It is clear that Government never intended to cancel the earlier recruitment process on the ground that new rules are to be framed and in that event, the recruitment process earlier initiated would have been abandoned. Interestingly, in the case at hand, even regularization policy (Annexure P- 13) provided that the regularization would be as per eligibility provided in the recruitment and promotion rules at the time of initial appointment. Interestingly, in the case at hand, even regularization policy (Annexure P- 13) provided that the regularization would be as per eligibility provided in the recruitment and promotion rules at the time of initial appointment. Vide Notification dated 31.8.2020 (Annexure RJ2), following was notified: “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order to convert the 771 vacant posts of Assistant Librarians into the cadre of Junior Office Assistant (Library) as per Annexure-A&B and remaining 252 filled up posts of Assistant Librarians be declared as dying cadre as per Annexure-C & D, which will stand abolished as and when fall vacant.” 22. After promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules vide Notification dated 12.7.2010, no recruitment has been made to the post of Assistant Librarians and cadre has been declared as dying cadre. As of today there are no Assistant Librarians recruited as per new rule, 17.9.2009, Annexure P-2, rather, all the incumbents in cadre of Assistant Librarians stand recruited under old rules notified on 24.5.2000, meaning thereby that the petitioners and other Assistant Librarians whether appointed on regular basis before or after promulgation of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 12.7.2010 are entitled to be treated at par with their counterparts i.e. Assistant Librarians appointed before 12.7.2010. 23. In this regard reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mehendran & others v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that when Rules regarding qualification for appointment are amended during continuation of process of selection and process is subsequently completed under the old Rules, the same cannot be governed by the new Rules in the absence of provision enforcing the amended rules with retrospective effect and the Rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the rights of candidates selected under the old rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “5. It is well-settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.” 24. It is clearly apparent from the record that the petitioners belong to common cadre of Assistant Librarians, as such, stand of the respondents that since the petitioners were regularized after promulgation of new rules, they are governed by said rules, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Cut off date of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e. 17.2.2009, cannot provide justification to the respondents to treat them differently from the Assistant Librarians of same cadre appointed before promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 25. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are holding same post in same cadre as has been held by their counterparts, who were appointed to the post of Assistant Librarians on regular basis before 12.7.2010. Since, both the categories are discharging identical duties and are transferable against any incumbent irrespective of date of appointment and are also included in same seniority, action of the respondent State to deny UGC pay scales to the category of the petitioners on the ground that their services were regularized after promulgation new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, if permitted to sustain would amount to discrimination vis-à-vis their counterparts. Even on the principle of equal pay for equal work, p.s. are entitled to equal pay at par with their counterparts who were regularized or appointed before 12.7.2010. 26. Division Bench of this court while dealing with the case of Assistant Librarians of the same department has already held on 23.12.2015 in State v. V.D. Saraswati LPA No. 146 of 2009 that members of same cadre cannot be given different pay scales. “The question is- whether in the given circumstances, the State can now question the judgments made by the learned Single Judge by the medium of Letters Patent Appeal at hand? The answer is in the negative for the simple reason that, admittedly, the principle has been discussed and the findings stand returned by the State Administrative Tribunal, the writ Court and the Appellate Court that all the Assistant Librarians, constituted one homogeneous class, which findings stand upheld by the Apex court. Virtually, the State, by the medium of instant appeals have questioned the foundation of reasoning on the basis of which the earlier judgment referred to above were made which is not possible? 27. This court in Uttem Singh v. State of H.P., CWP No. 1640 of 2017, decided on 17.9.2019 has traced the entire history of the dispute relating to the pay scale of the Assistant Librarians and has held as under: “17. Since question stands duly settled that there is only one cadre of Assistant Librarians in Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries and Community Centre Libraries and there cannot be any discrimination in higher pay scale of Rs. 300-600...” 28. This court in Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan and others v. State of H.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 4063 of 2008, has held as under: “The respondents have divided the homogeneous class of Auditors without there being any rationale. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the Auditors, who have put in 5 years of service or were appointed on or before 23.7.1990 and appointed after 23.7.1990. There is also no nexus sought to be achieved by depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right to get the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- at par with the colleagues who were working in the same department and also in the local Audit Department and Department of Food and Civil Supplies. There is also no nexus sought to be achieved by depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right to get the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- at par with the colleagues who were working in the same department and also in the local Audit Department and Department of Food and Civil Supplies. In case they had been working with the Local Audit Department, they would have got the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/- irrespective of their date of appointment. The respondents cannot treat equals as unequals.” 29. In yet another case titled Balbir Singh Thakur and another v. State of H.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 6007 of 2008, decided on 6.8.2010, this court has held that there cannot be two pay scales for the same cadre of Block Development Officers on the basis of cut-off date. 30. In Kulbir Singh Rana and another v. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 3660 of 2012 decided on 20.9.2012, this court held in para-6 that while following the law laid down in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan supra, it has been already held in Balbir Singh’s case that there cannot be two pay scales for the same cadre of Block Development Officers on the basis of cut-off date. Thereafter in para Nos. 16 and 17, this court held that petitioners being similarly situate and discharging similar duties and working in the same cadre could not be given different treatment. This judgment was affirmed by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 2.7.2013 in LPA No. 148 of 2013, titled State of H.P. and another v. Kulbir Singh Rana and others, wherein, this court held as under: “2. The learned single Judge, besides applying the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of similarly placed persons have also recorded as of fact that the petitioners are admittedly similarly situate and discharging similar duties, but have been placed in different pay scales merely on the basis of their date of appointment. In other words, the respondents ought to succeed even on the principle of equal pay for equal work. No tangible explanation has been offered as to how the date of appointment would become relevant for fixing different pay scale to employee discharging the same work in the same department. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 31. In other words, the respondents ought to succeed even on the principle of equal pay for equal work. No tangible explanation has been offered as to how the date of appointment would become relevant for fixing different pay scale to employee discharging the same work in the same department. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 31. In view of detailed discussion made herein above, as well as law taken into consideration, it is quite apparent that the petitioners belong to one homogenous class of Assistant Librarians discharging same duties as are being discharged by other incumbents appointed on the basis of same Recruitment and Promotion Rules but yet they are being subjected to hostile discrimination on account of their having been regularized after promulgation of new rules. Impugned rejection of their claim is liable to be set aside and respondents are liable to be directed to treat the petitioners at par with their counterparts /Assistant Librarians in LPA No. 146 of 2009. 32. Consequently in view of above, the present petitions are allowed. Impugned rejection of the claim of the petitioners is set aside and respondents are directed to treat the petitioners herein at par with the persons /Assistant Librarians in LPA No. 146 of 2009 and grant them the same pay scale/UGC pay scales and allowances, alongwith all consequential benefits from due date.