JUDGMENT : As common factual matrix as well as legal issues are involved in all these three writ petitions, the same are being decided by a common judgment. The prayer in the writ petitions is for issuance of a direction to the respondents as under:- “That a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to grant benefits of notional increments and fix the pay keeping in view the release of revised pay scales and further after fixing the increments and pay the arrears accrued thereto alongwith interest of late grant of notional increments and fixation of pay may be granted in favour of the petitioner from his initial appointment till taking over the school with all other consequential benefits such as facility of pension, leave due, gratuity etc., which were available to the government employees who were working on the similar posts at the time of appointment of petitioner in a Government aided school and the service rendered by the petitioner from his initial appointment till taking over the school may also be counted for the purpose of length of service in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed in Indira Gandhi Middle School Khararhatti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., which was managed by Shiksha Samiti Khararhatti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, a Society duly registered under the Societies Act, XXI, 1860. Petitioner, namely, Rajinder Kumar, in CWPOA No. 690 of 2019, was appointed as peon on 05.07.1991. Petitioners, namely, Sh. Shyam Singh Thakur and Sh. Prakash Chand, in CWPOA No. 1407 of 2009, were appointed as Drawing Teacher on 01.09.1987 and Trained Graduate Teacher, Science on 1.09.1997, respectively. Petitioner, namely Sh. Subhash Chand, in CWPOA No. 3373 of 2019, was initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on Ad-hoc basis on 01.03.1996 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 24.04.1996. The school in issue was receiving 95% grant-in-aid from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Vide communication dated 19.09.2005 (appended with CWPOA No. 690/2019 as Annexure P-2) the Government decided to take over the assets and liability of the 13, 95% Government aided schools subject to conditions as were referred to in the said communication. The school in issue was receiving 95% grant-in-aid from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Vide communication dated 19.09.2005 (appended with CWPOA No. 690/2019 as Annexure P-2) the Government decided to take over the assets and liability of the 13, 95% Government aided schools subject to conditions as were referred to in the said communication. This was followed by issuance of Annexure P-3, communication dated 24.11.2005 in terms whereof, the assets and liabilities of 13 privately managed 95% aided schools, details whereof were given in the said communication, stood taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The name of the school where the petitioners were employed was mentioned at serial No.8 therein. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were taken over by the Education Department in the pay scales mentioned against their names vide communication dated 23.02.2006 and 05.04.2006, copies whereof are appended with the respective petitions. The grievance of the petitioners is that whereas their services were taken over by the Education Department with immediate effect in the pay scales mentioned against the relevant office order, the last pay being drawn by them was not protected, whereas subsequently in the case of the persons similarly situated as the petitioners, the last pay being drawn by them stood protected. During the course of arguments, only this point was stressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. To substantiate this fact, the petitioners have appended with these writ petitions office order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-4A, appended with CWPOA No. 690 of 2019), perusal whereof demonstrates that when services of persons similarly situated as the petitioners, who were serving in other private schools, staff of which was also taken over by the Government, then though their appointment was stated to be fresh appointment but the pay being drawn by them was ordered to be protected as a measure personal to the incumbent. Representations in this regard were made by the petitioners but as their grievance was not redressed by the Department concerned, the same led to the filing of the present writ petitions. 4. When this case was listed on 08.10.2021, the following order was passed:- “Mr. Representations in this regard were made by the petitioners but as their grievance was not redressed by the Department concerned, the same led to the filing of the present writ petitions. 4. When this case was listed on 08.10.2021, the following order was passed:- “Mr. Varun Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the limited prayer of the petitioner(s) is that the pay, which was being drawn by them, at the time when their services were taken over by the State Government as a result of the institution, in which they were serving, being taken over by the government be protected as the pay of the persons similarly situated as the petitioner(s), stands protected by the government. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted sometime to have specific instructions in this regard. List on 30.10.2021.” 5. Thereafter on 30.10.2021, learned Additional Advocate General informed the Court that as per his instructions, pay protection was not granted to any person similarly situated as the petitioner(s). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the pleadings of the case as well as the documents appended therewith. 7. The case of the petitioners has been spelt out by me in the above paras of the judgment. The stand of the respondents-Department is that the claim of the petitioners to protect their salary cannot be considered in terms of the policy under which their services were taken over by the Department concerned. Learned Additional Advocate General while referring to Annexure R-1 appended with the reply filed in CWPOA No. 690 of 2019, has submitted that the conditions of appointment were clearly mentioned therein which were not objected to by the petitioners at that relevant time, and subsequently the petitioners cannot be permitted to claim protection of pay as they had accepted the terms and conditions without any objection. 8. This Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the posts against which the petitioners were engaged, when their services taken over by the Government, the bargaining power of the petitioners was not such so as to enable them to take cajole with the respondents-Department on the issue of protection of pay. 8. This Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the posts against which the petitioners were engaged, when their services taken over by the Government, the bargaining power of the petitioners was not such so as to enable them to take cajole with the respondents-Department on the issue of protection of pay. In fact, the petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court only after persons similarly situated as the petitioners, whose services were also taken over by the Government and who were earlier serving in some other grant in aid getting private schools, were given pay protection as a matter of personal to them, which pay protection was not given to the petitioners. They thus approached this Court seeking parity in the act of the Government between similarly situated persons. As the contents of Annexure P4 i.e. office order 06.09.2012. (supra) have not been disputed during the course of the arguments, therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn by this Court is that there is merit in the contention of the petitioners that as the last pay drawn by persons similarly situated as the petitioners was protected by the Government when their services were taken over by the Government though on fresh appointment basis, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for similar relief. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality and in case similarly situated persons are treated dissimilarly by the Government then it amounts to violation of the provision of Article 14. The petitioners are demanding same yardstick to be applied to them which was applied by the Government to the incumbents similarly situated as the persons. This prayer of the petitioners is not unreasonable. The petitioners are not asking for some relief which the Government has not granted to similarly situated persons. In fact, the State being a Model Employer, cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly situated persons and the petitioners are entitled for the pay protection which they are seeking by way of these writ petitions. 9. The petitioners are not asking for some relief which the Government has not granted to similarly situated persons. In fact, the State being a Model Employer, cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly situated persons and the petitioners are entitled for the pay protection which they are seeking by way of these writ petitions. 9. Accordingly, in view of what has been observed hereinabove, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent that petitioners are held entitled to the last pay drawn by them at the time of their services be taken over by the respondents- Department as a measure personal to them as has also been none by the respondents-Department in the case of similarly situated persons in terms of office order dated 06.09.2012. In other words, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for same parity with regard to the fixation of the salary as has been done by the Department in the case of incumbents referred to in office order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-4). The fixation of pay as well as benefits of revision thereof shall be given to the petitioners from the date, their services were taken over. Let, needful be done within a period of 90 days from today. In case, the needful is not done within a period of 90 days, then the Department shall be liable to pay interest upon the arrears @ 6% simple interest from the date of judgment till the date of the release of actual emoluments. Pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.