Point of Law: Petitioners being similarly situate and discharging similar duties and working in the same cadre could not be given different treatment.

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