JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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, being Trained Graduate Teachers [TGTs] [Arts] have filed the instant writ petition, with the following prayers:

“(I) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial engagement/ appointment with all consequential benefits in term of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 7602 of 2010, titled as Om Prakash vs. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No. 3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi vs. State of H.P. and Others and CWP No. 3143 of 2011, titled as Manju Devi vs. State of H.P and Others.

(II) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of realization.

(III) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to extend same and similar benefits as has been extended to Ms. Rakhi (LT), Mr. Tej Ram (LT) & Mr. Kuldip Chand (TGT, now Lecturer) in terms of judgments passed in CWP No. 7602/2010, titled as Om Parkash vs. State of H.P. and Others and connected matters, CWP No. 3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi vs. State of H.P. and Others by this Hon’ble Court.”

4. In the background of the reliefs prayed for above, the only grievance of the petitioners is that the Respondents had started the selection process for appointment as TGTs [Arts] in August/September, 2008 (Annexure P-1), on Batch wise Basis, on regular basis, in the 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 them on regular basis as TGTs [Arts] they were appointed on contractual basis on 07.11.2008 and 28.05.2009. The petitioners continued as such and they were regularized as TGTs.

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 had undergone the selection for appointment as TGTs [Arts] on regular basis but, were wrongly and illegally appointed on contract basis when, contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment was introduced in the Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, Trained Graduate Teachers [Class-III] [Non Gazetted], Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 22.10.2009 and once these Rules of 2010 were only prospective in nature then, the petitioners could not have been appointed on contract basis, meaning thereby, that the petitioners had a right to be appointed on regular basis from the date of initial appointment.

In this background, the action of the respondents in denying the “deemed regular appointment to the petitioners, as TGTs [Arts] from the date they were appointed as such on contract basis on 07.11.2008, 28.05.2009 and 21.02.2017 [prior to insertion of contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment in Rules on 22.10.2009]; 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 date of regular appointment and the benefit of higher pay in the applicable revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and, thereafter till day, but denial to the same is a recurring loss till day. Even this inaction shall result 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 Educa