JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings. 3. The petitioners, initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and Lecturer (School Cadre) and some are presently working as Lecturer, School Cadre, have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the contract period of the petitioners w.e.f. the year 2008/09/10 as regular for all purposes like salary, seniority, increment and pensionary benefits from the initial date of appointment and grant them the consequential benefits in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in LPA 54 of 2013 and CWP No. 414 of 2014 and other connected cases, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 4. In the background, of the reliefs prayed for above, the brief facts and that respondents commenced the selection process for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers [Arts/Medical/Non Medical] and Lecturer (School Cadre) in 2008-2009, on contract basis, on Batch wise Basis, in Department of Education, of the State Government in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973 but, instead of appointing the Petitioners No. 1 to 35 as Trained Graduate Teachers [Arts/Medical/Non Medical] on regular basis they, were appointed on as TGTs on contractual basis in 2008-2009. Likewise the Petitioners No. 36 & 37 were appointed as Lecturers (School Cadre) in the year 2010 on contractual basis when, as per the existing R&P Rules of 1973, which only provided for regular appointment, in regular pay scale and on regular posts. 5. Now, the only grievance of the petitioners is that though as per the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department Class-III [School and Inspection Cadre] Service Rules, 1973, the petitioners 1 to 35 had undergone selection for appointment as TGT [Arts/Medical/ Non Medical] in 2008-2009 on regular basis but, were illegally appointed on contract basis when, in case of TGTs, the contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment was introduced in the Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, [Class-III] [Non Gazetted], Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 12.10.2009. Likewise, in the case of petitioners No. 36 and 37, through the selection for recruitment as Lecturers (School Cadre) was enacted in 2009 under the R&P Rules of 1973 then, the respondents illegally appointed the petitioners on contract basis, when, in case of Lecturers (School Cadre), the contractual mode of appointments was introduced in the R&P Rules of Lectures (School Cadre) on 20.9.2010. Meaning thereby, that once the petitioners, have undergone selection under the R&P Rules of 1973 as TGTs and Lecturers (School Cadre) which provided for appointment on regular basis, in regular pay scale and regular posts then, on selection and joining the petitioners could not be appointed as TGTs & Lecturers (School Cadre) on contractual basis, when, the contractual mode of recruitment/appointment was introduced by the enacting the Rules of 1973 on 12.10.2009 [in case of Trained Graduate Teachers] and on 22.9.2010 [in case of Lecturers (School Cadre)], which could not apply retrospectively, so as to curtail the rights and benefits under Rules of 1973, under which their selection commenced, was undertaken and completed on their appointment/joining also. In this background, the action of respondents in denying the “deemed regular appointment” to the petitioners, as TGTs [Arts/Medical/Non Medical] and Lecturers (School Cadre) from the date they were appointed as such on contract basis [prior to insertion of contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Trained Graduate Teachers on 22.10.2009 and in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Post of Lecturers (School Cadre) issued on 20.09.2010]; has resulted in depriving the petitioners of the regular status, regular pay scale, pay fixation in regular pay scale, benefit of ACP from such deemed regular date, higher pay in revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and higher pay till day is a recurring loss till day. Even this action has resulted in depriving the petitioners of the pension on superannuation which is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Even this action has resulted in depriving the petitioners of the pension on superannuation which is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The question, as to whether the incumbents who had undergone selection for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers or for the post of Lecturers (School Cadre) under the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III, (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules 1973 for regular posts, in the regular pay scales, could be appointed on contractual basis in the years 2008 to 2010 when, the contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment was introduced by issuing the Amended Rules on 12.10.2009 [in case of Trained Graduate Teachers] and on 22.09.2010 [in case of Lecturers School Cadre], and when the amended rules cannot be applied retrospectively to selection undertaken under the amended Rules but were to apply prospectively; stands adjudicated/answered by this Court; in CWP No.7602 of 2010, titled as Om Parkash Versus State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith connected matters, decided on 02.05.2012, and in CWP No.3143 of 2011, titled as Manju Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 07.11.2012, and CWP No. 3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.10.2012; and the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court have also been affirmed in LPA No. 54 of 2013 alongwith other connected LPA’s titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Om Parkash, decided on 04.10.2019, (Annexure P-1) whereby, the Division Bench of this Court has recorded its findings as under:- 4. Observations: 4(i) It is not in dispute that even though the State Government on 12.12.2003 had requested all the Heads of Departments to amend Clause-10 of R&P Rules, for including contractual appointment as one of the mode of recruitment in accordance with the decision taken by the State, yet, Recruitment & Promotion Rules for lecturers (school cadre) were not amended in tune with 12.12.2003 decision of the State Government. The mode of recruitment under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for appointment lecture (School cadre) continued to be only on regular basis. It was only on 20.9.2010, that Clause10 of the R&P Rules for the posts in question was amended and notified, incorporating contractual appointments, as one of the mode of recruitment. 4(ii) The college in question was taken over by the State on 6.2.2007. It was only on 20.9.2010, that Clause10 of the R&P Rules for the posts in question was amended and notified, incorporating contractual appointments, as one of the mode of recruitment. 4(ii) The college in question was taken over by the State on 6.2.2007. In terms of notification dated 25.8.1994, services of the eligible staff were also required to be taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. State though had taken over the services of the staff of the Kanwar Durga Chand Memorial College, Jaisinghpur only on 21.6.2010. Fact remains that services of writ petitioners were taken over prior to amendment of R&P Rules. The services of the petitioners were required to be taken over in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which were in existence on the date of taking over the college i.e. 6.2.2007. The R&P Rules as they existed on 6.2.2007 did not provide for contractual appointments. The Rules only provided for regular recruitments. Service of petitioners were taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. College itself was taken over on 6.2.2007. Therefore, clause providing appointment on contractual basis inserted in the R&P Rules by way of amendment of Rules on 20.09.2010, could not be retrospectively applied to the petitioners. It is apt to refer the judgment passed by this Court, in CWP No.1811 of 2008, titled Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P & others, relevant segment reproduced hereinafter:- “25……………………………Government appointments are made in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. When such Rules are framed the Government is expected to act and make appointments in accordance with the Rules. If the Rules do not permit the Government to make appointment on contract basis they must be made on regular basis. 4(iii) The notification dated 25.8.1994, under which State Government took over the privately managed colleges as well as services of staff working there, provides for granting them Government scales as admissible to their respective corresponding categories. Clause-9 of this notification reads as under:- “9. 4(iii) The notification dated 25.8.1994, under which State Government took over the privately managed colleges as well as services of staff working there, provides for granting them Government scales as admissible to their respective corresponding categories. Clause-9 of this notification reads as under:- “9. Provided that services of only those employees will be taken over who furnish a written acceptance on non-judicial paper duly attested by the competent authority to the effect that they are willing to be absorbed in Government services on the terms and conditions laid down in these rules.” There is no provision in the above notification for taking over services of staff of privately managed colleges on contract basis, more so, in the facts of instant case, in view of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Lecturer (School cadre) as they existed on 6.2.2007 i.e. the date of takeover, whereunder no provision for appointment on contract basis was there, regular recruitment was the only prescribed mode. 5. Thus, services of the petitioners’ were thus required to be taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007 on regular basis. There is no infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. All these appeals are therefore dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 7. Learned counsel further submit that based on the judgment in case of Om Prakash [CWP No. 7600 of 2010, affirmed in LPA No.54 of 2013 on 04.10.2019] and other connected LPAs, and the principle of law, answered therein, the benefit of deemed regular appointment as Shastri Teachers [in C&V Cadre of Shastri-Language teachers etc.] has been granted to incumbents, from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis even during the pendency of COPCT No.1125 of 2020 in case, titled as Tej Ram versus Rajeev Sharma and Execution Petition No.327 of 2020 in case titled as Rakhi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., the respondents have issued the communication(s) on 26.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 giving deemed regular appointment as Shastri Teachers – Oriental Teachers from the date of initial contract appointment. Even a perusal of the orders in Execution Petition No.94 of 2020, titled as Kuldip Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 28.11.2023, whereby the similarly placed Language Teacher [of C&V Cadre in Mandi District] has been treated as regular Language Teacher w.e.f. 30.01.2009 i.e. the date of her initial contractual appointment in regular-applicable pay scale, with pay fixation, ACP and Pension. 8. 8. By applying the above principle of law in LPA No.21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. versus Ravinder Kumar, decided on 04.10.2019, (Annexure P-1), the benefit of deemed regular appointment from the date of initial contractual appointment has been given to the Lecturers (School Cadre). 9. On same analogy, by applying the same principle in law, CWP No.3144 of 2011, upheld in LPA No. 4059 of 213, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. versus Anju Devi and on the basis of CWP No.7602 of 2010, affirmed in LPA No.54 of 2013 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. versus Om Prakash, decided on 04.10.2019, the benefit of deemed regular appointment was granted to Trained Graduate Teachers from the date of initial contractual appointment. 10. Case records reveal that once this Hon’ble Court has adjudicated upon a principle of law, mandating that once selection was initiated under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 1973, which provided for regular appointment in regular pay then, the respondents cannot give appointment to incumbents on contractual basis in fixed emoluments; when, the contractual mode of recruitment-appointment was incorporated in the Rules much after the incumbents-petitioners had joined; and when, the amendment in Rules introducing contractual mode of appointment(s) could not be applied retrospectively to the disadvantage and prejudice of the incumbents-petitioner(s), so as to curtail or take away or restrict or deny the rights and benefits which had or were to accrue under the Rules of 1973, under which, the selection-recruitment process of the petitioner(s) was initiated. 11. In this view of the matter, the Government-Respondents have issued an order on 01.12.2023, to implement the judgment and to give deemed regular appointments [to appellants-petitioners therein, as Shastri Teachers - Language Teachers as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts/Medical/Non-Medical); and as Lecturers (School Cadre) in the applicable regular pay scale, with pay fixation and other benefits from the date they were initially appointed on contract basis. 12. 12. By applying the above mandate of law; which stands implemented by the respondents; and once the petitioners, being similarly placed are entitled to deemed regular appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers and Lecturers (School Cadre) w.e.f. 2008 to 2010, from the date from which they were initially appointed, on contract basis, with benefit of regular status, regular pay scale, pay fixation in regular scale from the date of initial joining on contract basis in 2008-2009 in applicable scale and then in revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till day; but denial is a recurring loss till day; and the action of the respondents, amounts to treating petitioners-equals as unequal, is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the mandate of this Court in case of Om Prakash, Anju Devi, Manju Devi, Ravinder Kumar [relating to TGTs and Lecturers (School Cadre) as mentioned in Paras 5, 6 to 8, 10 & 12] and the directions/orders passed in case of Tej Ram and Rakhi and Kuldip Chand [relating to Shastri and Language Teachers as mentioned in Para 7] supra and the implementation order dated 01.12.2023, is not in dispute but, the factual aspects needs to be looked into and verified, on case to case basis. 14. In these circumstances, and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of the petitioners, this Court permits the petitioners to make a representation, either jointly or separately, to the Respondents/Competent Authority within three weeks; with further directions to the aforesaid Respondent to verify the facts; and in case, the petitioners are found to be similarly placed then, to consider/examine the case of the petitioners for extending similar benefits of deemed regular appointment from the date the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, as Trained Graduate Teachers, in the light of above referred judgments within six weeks thereafter. 15. Upon consideration, in case, the respondents decide to extend the benefit of deemed regular appointment to the petitioner(s), as Trained Graduate Teachers and Lecturer (School Cadre) from the date of their initial appointment(s) on contractual basis as such; then, the respondents shall grant the consequential benefits notionally. However, it is clarified that the respondents shall give the eligible and admissible monetary benefits to the petitioner(s), in accordance with law. 16. However, it is clarified that the respondents shall give the eligible and admissible monetary benefits to the petitioner(s), in accordance with law. 16. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all questions of facts and law are left open. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.