JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioners [Surjit Singh Thakur & Kishore Chand] having retired from the post(s) of Assistant Librarians from the Education Department of the State have come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- “(i). That the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the respondents as Annexure A-8 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicants as Assistant Librarian (School Cadre) on regular basis will all consequential benefits and seniority in terms of the judgment dated 24.07.2010, Annexure A-7]. (iii).That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant same and similar relief/benefits to the applicants as has been extended to the petitioners in O.A. No. 2303/2003 and CWP (T) No. 14614/2008.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set-up by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein, namely [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand] are Ex-servicemen and they possessed the Diploma in Library and Information Science from Kurukshetra University, as in Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2. It is averred that after discharge from Indian Army, the petitioners got themselves enrolled with Ex-servicemen Cell-Respondent No.3, for being considered for appointment on the posts of Assistant Librarians against unreserved and even against reserved posts, meant for ex-servicemen, in the Respondent-Department. 2(i). It is averred that the Respondent No 2-Director of Higher Education-Respondent No.4 sent a requisition to Employment Exchanges in Himachal Pradesh on 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3] with a copy to Ex-servicemen Cell Hamirpur, for sponsoring names of suitable eligible candidates pertaining to General/SC/OBC/ST categories for appointment as an Assistant Librarians on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200. Pursuant to requisition dated 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3/ Annexure R-V], Respondent No 3-Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, HP at Hamirpur sent a Nomination List on 18/21-11-2002 [Annexure A- 4/R-VIII], nominating 38 Ex-servicemen for being appointed as Assistant Librarians against reserved post for Ex-servicemen with the request to the Respondent No.4-Director of Higher Education to issue the appointment letters to the nominated candidates within 15 days from date of receipt of nomination letter and allow them 15 days time to join respective appointments. It is further submitted that out of 38 candidates, the petitioner No.1 [Surjit Singh Thakur] and the petitioner No.2 [Kishore Chand] figured at serial Nos. It is further submitted that out of 38 candidates, the petitioner No.1 [Surjit Singh Thakur] and the petitioner No.2 [Kishore Chand] figured at serial Nos. 06 and 34, along with one Shri Vikram Chand Katoch and others in aforesaid list, for being appointed as an Assistant Librarians against the reserved post meant for Ex-servicemen. 2(ii). Despite the nomination of the petitioners and others on 18/21-11-2002 for the posts of Assistant Librarians meant for Ex-servicemen], the respondents issued a Revised List of Nominated Ex-servicemen on 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/ R-X], whereby, the Original Nomination List dated 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/ R-VIII] nominating 38 incumbents was superseded and squeezed down by recommending-nominating the names of 24 Ex-servicemen for appointment as Assistant Librarians against Ex-servicemen quota posts. Perusal of the Revised Nomination List dated 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/R-X] indicates that the petitioner No.1 [Surjit Singh Thakur] still figured at serial No.6 and the petitioner No.2 [Kishore Chand] appeared at serial No.19 of the Revised Nomination List. In addition, one Shri Vikram Chand Katoch and others figured at serial No. 11 of Revised Nomination List. 2(iii). It is submitted that despite the nomination of the names of petitioners for post of Assistant Librarians in the Original Nomination List dated 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII] and even in the Revised Nomination List dated 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5 /R-X], the Respondent No.2-Director, Higher Education did not issue the appointment letters to nominated Ex-servicemen including the petitioners despite the fact, that such nominated candidates were to be offered and given appointment within 15 days. Feeling aggrieved against the non-appointment, other 15 Ex-servicemen who were nominated along with the petitioners herein filed an Original Application No.2303 of 2003, titled as Vikram Chand Katoch and others before the Learned State Administrative Tribunal [Annexure A-6] stating that once the other batch-wise Departmental Quota candidates and Sports Quota candidates have been given appointments then, despite their nomination, they could not be denied appointment which was contrary to Government Instructions and was also discriminatory. In this backdrop, the State Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 29.06.2004 [Annexure A-6], directing the Respondents 1 & 2-State Authorities to take appropriate decision for making appointments of Vikram Chand Katoch and 14 others within 04 months. In this backdrop, the State Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 29.06.2004 [Annexure A-6], directing the Respondents 1 & 2-State Authorities to take appropriate decision for making appointments of Vikram Chand Katoch and 14 others within 04 months. However, since nothing was done, the petitioners in the case of Vikram Chand Katoch and others filed another Original Application No. 97 of 2007 [re-numbered as CWP (T) No. 14614 of 2008], decided on 24.07.2010 and during the pendency of aforesaid Original Application/CWP(T), Respondents issued an Office Order dated 07.02.2009 [Taken on Record] nominating 13 Ex-servicemen, including Vikram Chand Katoch as well as the present petitioners 1 & 2 [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand] for appointment as Assistant Librarians on contract basis on fixed emoluments of Rs.6030/- per annum. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Original Application No.97 of 2007 [re-numbered as CWP(T) No.14614 of 2008], was decided by Division Bench of this Court on 24.07.2010 [Annexure A-7], whereby, this Court directed the Respondent No.1-Principal Secretary (Education), HP to appoint the petitioners with retrospective effect within four months and the petitioners were held entitled to salary from retrospective date. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in compliance to judgment dated 24.07.2010 [Annexure A-7], the respondents issued an Office Order on 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1 with rejoinder] appointing other similarly placed Ex-servicemen, namely, Vikram Chand Katoch, who had filed earlier Original Application No.97 of 2007 converted as CWP(T) 14614 of 2018 appointing them as Assistant Librarians on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- w.e.f. 29.10.2004. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education had issued another office order on 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1 enclosed with CMP(T) No. 1051 of 2024], whereby, benefit of regular appointment as Assistant Librarians, which was earlier granted to Vikram Chand Katoch and others as per orders dated 28.09.2010 w.e.f. 29.10.2004 [Annexure R-1 supra], was again modified/antedated by treating them as Assistant Librarians in regular pay scale w.e.f. 08.12.2002. In the above background, grievance of the petitioners is that in pursuance to the requisition dated 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3/Annexure R-V], once the petitioners No.1 & 2 and other Ex-servicemen were nominated for appointment as Assistant Librarians in terms of the Original Nomination Letter dated 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII] and even as per the Revised Nomination Letter dated on 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/R-X] and the Respondents-State Authorities have appointed Vikram Chand Katoch and others including the petitioners herein [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand as Assistant Librarians on contract basis on 07.02.2009 on fixed emoluments with immediate effect and this order of contractual appointment was modified by issuing another order on 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1] appointing aforesaid Shri Vikram Chand Katoch and others as Assistant Librarian on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.4020- 6200/- w.e.f. 29.10.2004 [Annexure R-1] and this order has further been ante dated by treating Vikram Chand Katoch and others as Assistant Librarian, on regular basis in regular pay scale w.e.f. 08.12.2002 [Annexure A-1 with CMP(T) No.1051 of 2024] then, the present petitioners [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand], who were similarly placed are entitled for similar benefits but the action of the State Authorities-Respondents in still treating the petitioners as contractual Assistant Librarians in terms of the orders dated 07.02.2009 and in regularizing them as in the year 2015 prospectively ; deserves to be modified by treating the petitioners as regularly appointed Assistant Librarians with effect from 08.12.2002 on the same analogy on which the benefit of regular appointment as Assistant Librarian has been granted to Vikram Chand Katoch and other Ex-servicemen w.e.f. 29.10.2004 [Annexure R-I] which was antedated w.e.f. 08.12.2002 [Annexure A-I] in CMP(T) 1051 of 2024 supra] with benefit of higher status, higher pay fixation and all service benefits by treating them as Assistant Librarians on regular basis w.e.f. 08.12.2002 [instead of treating petitioners as Assistant Librarians on contract w.e.f. 07.02.2009 and as regular Assistant Librarians on regularization in terms of the State Government Policy in the year 2015] with all consequential service benefits. STAND OF RESPONDENT N0 4 IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT: 3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed Reply-Affidavit dated 20.07.2024 of Director of Higher Education. STAND OF RESPONDENT N0 4 IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT: 3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed Reply-Affidavit dated 20.07.2024 of Director of Higher Education. After admitting factual backdrop, it is mentioned in Para 3 of reply-affidavit, on merits, that the benefit of appointment to Ex-servicemen as Assistant Librarians has been granted by the respondents,by appointing such Ex-servicemen as Assistant Librarians in the year 2009 on contract basis. It is averred in the reply that the contractual Assistant Librarians were regularized in the year 2015. Reply-affidavit further states that benefit of the judgment dated 24.07.2010 in the case of Vikram Chand Katoch i.e. Original Application No. 2303 of 2003 and Original Application No.97 of 2007 [re-numbered as CWP(T) No.14614 of 2008, decided on 24.07.2010], cannot be extended to the petitioners, on the ground, that the aforesaid judgment in the case of Vikram Chand Katoch was a judgment in personam. 3(i). Para 14 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the Department has given regular employment to 15 Ex-servicemen candidates, who were applicants/petitioners in Original Application No. 2303 of 2003 and since the petitioners were not a party to the aforesaid judgments in the case of Vikram Chand Katoch, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefits of judgment in Vikram Chand Katoch [supra]. In this backdrop, prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONERS: 4. Petitioners filed a rejoinder stating that once the Respondents-State had sent requisition on 31.08.2002, for 38 posts of Assistant Librarians and the respondents nominated Ex-servicemen on 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII] which included the name of Vikram Chand Katoch as well as the petitioners [namely, Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand] in the said list and even if Revised Nomination List was issued on 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/Annexure R-X] and the names of Vikram Chand Katoch and the petitioners Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand were included in revised nomination list. In these circumstances, once Director of Higher Education has issued an Office Order on 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1 with rejoinder] giving benefit of regular appointmentw.e.f. 29.10.2004 as Assistant Librarians to Vikram Chand Katoch and others in regular pay scale with benefits as admissible to regular employees then, the present petitioners [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand] being similarly placed could not have been singled out and were entitled for similar benefits. SUPPLEMNTARY AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION BY PETITIONERS FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS: 5. SUPPLEMNTARY AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION BY PETITIONERS FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS: 5. Petitioners filed a Supplementary Affidavit on 13.12.2024 placing on record the norms and Instructions entitling nominated Ex-servicemen for appointment within 15 days from the date of nomination. Despite issuance of notice on 17.12.2024 directing the Respondents to file response, the State has not chosen to file any response. However, the petitioners filed a CMP (T) No. 1051 of 2024, placing on record the copy of Office Order dated 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1 with application] revealing that Ex-servicemen, namely, Vikram Chand Katoch and others who were treated as regular Assistant Librarians w.e.f. 29.10.2004 have been extended benefit of regular appointment as Assistant Librarians w.e.f. 08.12.2002 then, the petitioners being similarly placed, cannot be singled out, discriminated and made to suffer hostile discrimination and are entitled for similar benefits. 6. Heard, Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate as well as Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State and have gone through the case records. ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that rejection orders dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8] cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, for the following reasons:- 7(i). Respondent-Department sent a requisition on 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3/R-V] for tentatively filling up 108 posts of Assistant Librarians which included the 20 posts of Assistant Librarians for Ex-servicemen category. Another requisition dated 24.10.2002 {Annexure R-VI) was sent to Respondent No. 3-Ex-Servicemen Cell for filling 18 more posts of Assistant Librarians from Ex-servicemen. Pursuant to requisitions for 38 posts, the Respondent No 3-Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur, nominated 38 Ex-servicemen for being appointed as an Assistant Librarians on 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII]. Notably, this nomination was withdrawn/held in abeyance and thereafter a Revised Nomination List was forwarded by Respondent No.3-Ex-servicemen Cell to Department of Education/State Authorities on 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/R-X] for appointing the nominated candidates which included the petitioner No.1 [Surjit Singh Thakur] and petitioner No.2 [Kishore Chand] along-with Vikram Chand Katoch and others and candidates figuring in Revised Nomination List dated 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/R-X] were appointed as Assistant Librarians on contract basis only on 17.02.2009. However, State Authorities issued an order on 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1], whereby, contractual appointments of Vikram Chand Katoch and 10 others have been re-casted by treating them Assistant Librarians on regular basis, in pay scale of Rs 4020-6200/-w.e.f. 29.10.2004, ignoring the petitioners herein, who were made to continue on the posts of Assistant Librarians on contract. That being so, once other Ex-servicemen, who were nominated along with the present petitioners for the posts of Assistant Librarian and were initially appointed on contract but their appointment was modified on 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1] to regular basis w.e.f. 29.10.2004 and such order was again modified/antedated on 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1 with CMP(T) No. 1051 of 2024] appointing similarly placed incumbents as Assistant Librarians on regular basis w.e.f. 08.12.2002 by giving such benefit to Vikram Chand Katoch and 04 others, despite having been retired from service; therefore, this Court sees no reason as to why the petitioners herein, who are similarly situated are not entitled to same benefit of regular appointment, in regular pay scale and all service benefits as admissible to regular employees as Assistant Librarian w.e.f. 08.12.2002 with all benefits. 7(ii). The hostile discrimination given to the petitioners did not end at this stage. Even after passing of orders dated 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1 with rejoinder], the Director of Higher Education issued another Order on 14.07.2020 Annexure A-1 with CMP(T) No.1051 of 2024] whereby similarly placed Assistant Librarians, namely, Vikram Chand Katoch and 04 others who despite having retired were given the benefit of appointment as Assistant Librarians, on regular basis, in terms of orders dated 14.07.2020 w.e.f. 08.12.2002 instead of the earlier orders of treating them as regular an Assistant Librarians w.e.f 29.10.2004, as referred to above. Thus in above backdrop, once Vikram Chand Katoch and other persons, who were Ex- servicemen and were nominated for appointment as Assistant Librarians have been granted the benefit of appointment initially on contract basis on 07.02.2009 and such appointment has been re-carved by appointing them Assistant Librarian on regular basis as per Order dated 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1] and this appointment was again re-carved/antedated by extending the benefit of regular appointment as Assistant Librarian to other similarly placed Ex-servicemen on 14.07.2020 w.e.f. 08.12.2002 [Annexure A-1 with CMP (T) No.1051 of 2024] then, this Court, sees no reason, as to why the present petitioners 1 & 2 [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand] should be singled out and not extended same benefit of regular appointment as Assistant Librarians as has been extended to Vikram Chand Katoch and others, as referred to above. Accordingly, Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8], which patently discriminates and puts petitioners to hostile discrimination vis-a-vis other similarly placed Ex-servicemen who were nominated for appointment as Assistant Librarians along with the petitioners in the Original Nomination List dated 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII] and also in the Revised Nomination List of Ex-servicemen dated 31.12.2002 [Annexure A-5/ R-X] then, the action of the State Authorities in appointing all nominated ex-servicemen initially on contract basis in the year 2009 and in subsequently appointing and/or treating them to have been appointed as Assistant Librarian on regular basis in terms of the orders dated 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1] w.e.f. 29.09.2004 and their appointment was again antedated on 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1 with CMP [T] 1051 of 2024] w.e.f. 08.12.2002 on regular basis therefore, the petitioners herein [Surjit Singh and Kishore Chand are entitled to be treated as Assistant Librarians on regular basis for all intents and purposes w.e.f. 08.12.2002 with all benefits instead of regularizing the petitioners subsequently in the year 2015 prospectively. Thus, the rejection order dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8] which carves out a class within one homogenous class of 24 Ex-servicemen, who were nominated for appointment as Assistant Librarians is discriminatory, illegal and uncalled for. 7(iii). Thus, the rejection order dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8] which carves out a class within one homogenous class of 24 Ex-servicemen, who were nominated for appointment as Assistant Librarians is discriminatory, illegal and uncalled for. 7(iii). Based on the rejection orders dated 12.07.2017, [Annexure P-8], the plea of the Learned State Counsel-Respondents that since the judgment in the case of Vikram Chand Katoch [Original Application No.2303 of 2003 Annexure A-6 and the judgment dated 24.07.2010 in Original Application No.97 of 2007 re-numbered as CWP (T) No.14614 of 2008], were judgments in personam, therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid judgement(s) cannot be extended to the present petitioners. The above plea of the respondents that judgment in the case of Vikram Chand Katoch is a judgment in personam cannot be made the basis for denying similar treatment and parity to petitioners, who along with other Ex-servicemen had faced/undergone the same selection for post of Assistant Librarians, against posts meant for Ex-servicemen through the Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur, and upon testing their suitability, the petitioners along with Vikram Chand Katoch and 23 others were recommended for appointment as per the Nomination List. In these circumstances, once the petitioners are similarly placed with other ex-servicemen alike Shri Vikram Chand Katoch then, merely because the judgment rendered in the case of Vishal Chand Katoch was a judgement in personam still, the petitioners being similarly placed cannot be singled out and therefore, they are entitled to similar benefits, as have been extended to Vikram Chand Katoch and others. Rejection orders dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8], certainly adds to the hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in State action which cannot be permitted to operate and sustain in instant case. Therefore, the rejection orders dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8] are quashed and set-aside. 7(iv). Case needs to be examined from another angle also. It is established practice in the State that for the purposes of filling the civil posts from ex-servicemen, the Department furnishes a requisition to Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur for nominating suitable Ex-servicemen for appointment. Upon nomination of ex-servicemen, the department is bound to issue appointment letter to the nominated candidates within 15 days of nomination. Such procedure for nomination and issuance of resultant appointment, is borne out from the Government decision dated 08.03.1973 [Annexure 7.2 in the Handbook of Personnel Matters] which reads as under:- “Copy of the Himachal Pradesh Govt. Upon nomination of ex-servicemen, the department is bound to issue appointment letter to the nominated candidates within 15 days of nomination. Such procedure for nomination and issuance of resultant appointment, is borne out from the Government decision dated 08.03.1973 [Annexure 7.2 in the Handbook of Personnel Matters] which reads as under:- “Copy of the Himachal Pradesh Govt. General Administration Department letter No.11-80/ 69-GAD-I, dated 8-3-1973 addressed to all Secretaries, Joint Secretaries, Heads of Department etc. Subject: Setting up of a special cell with the State Directorate of Employment and Training H.P. for ex-servicemen (including the disable and dependents of soldiers C&S personnel killed. I am directed to say that for the speedy and effective rehabilitation of ex-servicemen am directed Himachal Pradesh, a Special Cell has started functioning at the State Directorate of Employment and Training, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. 2. A note on the working of the Special Cell set up by the Government for re-settlement of ex-servicemen is enclosed for your information and guidance. SPECIAL CELL IN THE DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING HIMACHAL SPECIAL CELL IN THE DURMEN (INCLUDING THE DISABLED) AND DEPENDENTS OF SOLDIERS KILLED IN ACTION. A Special Cell for the placement of Ex- servicemen (including the Disabled) and dependents of soldiers killed in action under the charge of Sub-Regional Employment Officer, has been set up in the Directorate of Employment & Training, Himachal Pradesh, in the month of December, 1972 to which the following functions have been assigned:- a) Registration of ex-servicemen (including the disabled) and dependents of the soldiers killed in action and are resident in Himachal Pradesh. b) Placement of the Ex-servicemen so registered. c) Maintenance of liaison with State/District S.S. and A'S Boards as well as with bigger employers in the State to ensure that ex- servicemen in need of Employment assistance do register with the Employment Exchanges and Employment opportunities for them and promoted. d) Maintenance of close watch over the Employment Exchanges to ensure that vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen are fully taken advantage and, as far as possible, only Ex-servicemen are appointed against them. e) Looking into complaints relating to the employment of Ex-servicemen. f) Ensuring that policy and procedures of recruitment of Ex-servicemen are followed and watching the interests of Ex-servicemen in the matter of their employment. g) Liaison with Government Departments in regard to policy matters relating to employment of ex-servicemen. 2. e) Looking into complaints relating to the employment of Ex-servicemen. f) Ensuring that policy and procedures of recruitment of Ex-servicemen are followed and watching the interests of Ex-servicemen in the matter of their employment. g) Liaison with Government Departments in regard to policy matters relating to employment of ex-servicemen. 2. The Special Cell will start building up the Live register immediately and issue suitable instructions to the Employment Exchanges in this behalf. Side by side, it will ascertain from all Heads of Departments, the latest position in regard to reservation of vacancies for ex-servicemen. Instructions will also be issued to them to the effect that copies of requisitions for work people normally notified by them to the "Local Employment Exchange" under the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, be endorsed simultaneously to the Special Cell. In the mean time, the Sub-Regional Employment Officer, Incharge of the Special Cell will be attached for some time to the Secretary, State S.S. and A'S Board and some important D.S.S. & A'S Boards in the State to enable him to study the problems of resettlement of ex-servicemen as also the policy and instructions of the Minister of Defence in regard to these matters. All this may take about 2 months, as the staff for the Special Cell can only be put in position after the bifurcation of staff between the Industries and the Employment and training Department is finalized. Only then cell will start dealing with vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen. 3. The procedure given in the succeeding paragraphs will be adopted by the Special Cell:- xxxxxxx 3.9 The panels drawn up by the Selection Committee will be maintained by the Special Cell. On receipt of notification of reserved vacancies, the Special Cell will nominate one candidate from the appropriate list of panels against one vacancy and the Department concerned shall accept the candidate for appointment.” Similar communication dated 31.03.1990[as contained in Annexure 18.02 and 18.04 of the Handbook of Personnel Matter] reads as under:- “ Copy of Himachal Pradesh Government Department of Personnel letter No.8-34/ 73-D.P. (Niyukti-II) vol. VI, dated 31.03.1990, addressed to all Secretaries, Heads of Departments etc. (Referred to in Paras 18.2 and 18.4) Subject: Appointment of Ex-servicemen against the reserved posts. VI, dated 31.03.1990, addressed to all Secretaries, Heads of Departments etc. (Referred to in Paras 18.2 and 18.4) Subject: Appointment of Ex-servicemen against the reserved posts. I am directed to state on the above subject that it has been made clear in the directions vide General Administrative Department letter No. GAD-E© 17-1/84, dated 6-11-85 that the persons earmarked by the Ex-servicemen cell for the reserved posts for Ex-servicemen, be issued appointment letters within 15 days, but it has come to the notice of the Government that some departments do not issue the appointment letters of the Ex-servicemen will the selection to the non-reserved posts are not made. This is always improper. All the departments are requested that directions in the above letter be complied with strictly. This is proper to make here clear that for filling the posts by direct recruitment, in accordance to the Government directions, if necessary, after obtaining concurrence of the Finance Department, as soon as the notification is sent to the Public Service Commission or Employment Exchange, the Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur, be requested at the same time to send the names of the Ex-servicemen candidates for the reserved posts meant for the Ex-servicemen and as soon as suggestion of the names of Ex-servicemen is received from the Ex-servicemen Cell, the earmarked persons be issued appointment letters within 15 days. All the concerned Departments be made aware of the above orders and these be complied with strictly.” Based on above procedure for nominating Ex-servicemen against reserved posts, as mandated in the Government decision dated 08.03.1973 and 31.03.1990 as extracted above, this Court is of the considered view, that after nomination of Ex-servicemen against Civil Posts, the department is bound to issue the appointment letters to the nominated Ex-servicemen candidates within 15 days of the receipt of such nomination. These Government decisions further provide that after issuing the appointment letters within 15 days of nomination, the candidates are to be enabled to join within 15 days of the issuance of the appointment letters. These Government decisions further provide that after issuing the appointment letters within 15 days of nomination, the candidates are to be enabled to join within 15 days of the issuance of the appointment letters. In the instant case, the State Authorities have blatantly violated the communications dated 08.03.1973 and 31.03.1990 which has resulted in depriving the petitioners of their right of appointment within a period of 15 days from the date of nomination as per the nomination list but contrary to these norms, the State Authorities-Respondents have issued the appointments order to all nominated Ex-servicemen including the petitioners [Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand on 07.02.2009 on contract basis. However, the service of the petitioners were regularized in terms of regularization policy in the year 2015 by ignoring that requisition dated 31.08.2002 Annexure A-3/R-V, whereby, all the requisitioned posts including Unreserved and Reserved posts [including posts meant for Ex- servicemen] of Assistant Librarian were to be filled as regular posts in the regular pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/-. Undisputedly, pursuant to the requisition dated 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3/R-V] though the State Authorities have filled up all other posts of Assistant Librarians [other than Ex-servicemen] on regular basis, in regular pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- yet the action of the State Authorities in appointing the other category candidates [unreserved and other reserved] on regular basis whereas the petitioners-ex-servicemen were appointed on contract basis. Two different yardsticks in common selection is untenable, firstly, by appointing some of the unreserved category as well as other reserved category persons on regular basis and secondly, in case of ex- servicemen, including Vikram Chand Katoch and others and the petitioners they were appointed on contract basis is ex-facie discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, once the respondents have failed to issue the appointment letters to the petitioners as Assistant Librarians within 15 days from date of nomination for the post of Assistant Librarians, which only provided for regular nomenclature of post of Assistant Librarian and the contractual nomenclature was not recognized by the statutory Rules then, in these circumstances, the action of the State Authorities in not appointing the petitioners as Assistant Librarians on regular basis is highly deprecated. Right to regular appointment accrued in favour of the petitioners within 15 days from the date of nomination of their names for appointment as per Original Nomination List on 18/21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII], which even remained unaltered in the Revised Nomination List and such an accrued right of appointment was delayed by State Authorities from December 2002 for about 8 years till they were in-fact appointed on contract basis on 07.02.2009 revels unreasonableness and gross arbitrariness in State action. Action of the State Authorities in resorting to contractual appointment dehors the existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Librarians, which only permitted appointment on regular basis, in regular pay scale, on regular basis to the incumbents and therefore, the action of the State Authorities in appointing petitioners and other ex-servicemen on contract contrary to and dehors the Statutory Rules and contrary to the conditions contained in requisition dated 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3/R-V] which expressly providing for filling up the posts of Assistant Librarians on regular basis is bad in law. In these circumstances, this Court holds that the action of the respondents in denying regular appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Librarians w.e.f. 08.12.2002 as has been extended to other similarly placed ex-servicemen/incumbents, namely Vikram Chand Katoch and other-serviceman, who had faced and undergone the same selection and were recommended and were appointed along with the petitioners herein, is highly discriminatory and is uncalled for and is accordingly quashed and set-aside. 7(v). Even by testing the case of petitioners 1 & 2 on parity, once the benefit of regular appointment in the regular pay scale as Assistant Librarians has been extended by State Authorities- Respondents to other similarly placed Ex-servicemen w.e.f. 08.12.2002 [Annexure A-1 dated 14.07.2020] then, this Court, sees no reason, as to why the present petitioners be denied the similar benefit(s). Deprivation of parity and the action of the State Authorities in treating “equals as unequal” but without any cogent and convincing sustainable basis and the State action in giving appointment to the nominated ex-servicemen as well as the petitioners as Asssistant Librarian on contract basis on 07.02.2009 by acting wholly contrary to and dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules existing at the relevant time in the year 2002 and also by acting contrary to the express condition reflected in requisition dated 31.08.2002 [Annexure A-3/R-V i.e. at page no 15 and 69 of paper book, which expressly provided for filling up the posts of Assistant Librarian(s) on regular basis and therefore, the action of the State Authorities in modifying the order of contractual appointment in case of Vishal Chand Katoch and other ex-servicemen to regular appointment so as to bring their appointment in conformity with the Statutory Service Rules on 28.09.2010 w.e.f. 29.10.2004 and in further modifying their appointment on 14.07.2020 w.e.f. 08.12.2002 then, the petitioners are entitled for similar treatment, so as to bring the State action in tune with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in view of the Government decision(s) dated 08.03.1973 and 31.03.1990, once the State Authorities were duty bound to issue appointment letters within 15 days from date of nomination as per the Original Nomination List dated 18/ 21.11.2002 [Annexure A-4/R-VIII] and the Revised Nomination List dated 31.12.2002 {Annexure A-5/ R-X], then also, even in such an eventuality, the right which accrues to the petitioners in terms of the above Government decision, cannot be scuttled or kept in abeyance due to the inaction of the respondents themselves and that too without any fault attributable to the petitioners and in these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for similar treatment as has been given to Vikram Chand Katoch by treating the petitioners as an Assistant Librarians on regular basis, in regular pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640/-as revised from time to time from 08.12.2002 in terms of orders dated 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1 with CMP(T) No. No.1051 of 2024] for all intents and purposes. 7(vi). Moreover, the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, also supports the case of the petitioner. 6400-10640/-as revised from time to time from 08.12.2002 in terms of orders dated 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1 with CMP(T) No. No.1051 of 2024] for all intents and purposes. 7(vi). Moreover, the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, also supports the case of the petitioner. The inaction of the State Authorities in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Librarians as stands granted to other ex-servicemen in terms of the orders dated 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1] and the modified orders dated 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1, with CMP(T) 1051/2024} appointing other similarly placed ex-servicemen namely Vishal Chand Katoch and others as Assistant Librarians, initially on contract on 07.02.2009 and in again modifying their appointment as Assistant Librarian on regular basis w.e.f. 29.10.2004 and in again modifying/ante-dating their respective as Assistant Librarian appointment w.e.f. 08.12.2002 on regular basis,in regular pay scale whereas, the State Authorities have kept the petitioners namely Surjit Singh and Kishore Chand, as Assistant Librarian on contract basis w.e.f. 07.02.2009 and have regularized their services in the year 2015 prospectively, despite the fact that the petitioners and other ex-servicemen, namely Vishal Chand Katoch and others had undergone the same selection, and were recommended/nominated by Ex-servicemen Cell by a common order and were appointed as Assistant Librarians on contract basis in the 2009 and the petitioners were eligible for the posts and due to higher placement, the petitioners came within the merit, with reference to the reserved posts, meant for ex-servicemen, in terms of the Original as well as the Revised Nomination List therefore, the action of the State Authorities in modifying the appointment and in treating some of the other similar nominated /appointed ex-servicemen as an Assistant Librarian(s) w.e.f. 08.12.2002 but despite the fact that the petitioners were similarly placed, the State Authorities have denied same benefits to the petitioners, which is contrary to the principles mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others versus Arvind Kumar and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347 , whereby it has been held that if particular set of employees has been granted relief by Courts then, all identical and similarly placed persons should be treated alike by extending same benefit and not doing so would amount to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the following terms:- “22 The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: 22.1 The Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2 xxx xxx xxx 22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by Hon’ble three Judge Bench in Siraj Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2019 (17) Scale 626 , wherein it was observed as under:- “23. We further fail to appreciate as to how the same High Court could have considered the case of two employees differently when they were similarly circumstances. It is not in dispute that the present appellant as well as Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi were selected through the same selection process though their orders of appointment differs. 27. We further fail to appreciate as to how the same High Court could have considered the case of two employees differently when they were similarly circumstances. It is not in dispute that the present appellant as well as Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi were selected through the same selection process though their orders of appointment differs. 27. It is to be noted that the appellant has obtained the Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree in the year 1987 and though Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi had obtained the A.M.I.E. in 1993, taking into consideration that Sunil Dutt Sharma and Sajid Hasan had obtained the degree of A.M.I.E. in 1994, the said Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi was held to be entitled for promotion on 18.01.1995 i.e. the date on which the said Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma were promoted as Assistant Engineer from Junior Engineer. We fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court in denying the promotion to the appellant when all the other three i.e. namely Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma were appointed in the year 1987 through the same selection process and though Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi had obtained the degree in 1993 and Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma had obtained the same in 1994 whereas the appellant had obtained the said degree in 1987.” Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1943 of 2022, titled as Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel versus Union of India and Ors. has mandated that once the benefit has been given to some incumbents then, all persons who are similarly placed are entitled for similar benefits, in the following terms:- 14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berrv vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714 ]. 15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:- “19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. [See Amrit Lal Berrv vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714 ]. 15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:- “19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks through banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to Court. There is no justification to penalize them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners…..” (Emphasis Supplied) 16. No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a difference dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment. 23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. 23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant.” By applying the mandate of law in the case of Arvind Kumar, Siraj Ahmad and Suprita Chandel (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners being similarly placed, deserve parity in treatment by extending same benefits as have been extended to other similarly placed Ex-servicemen, by treating them as Assistant Librarians, on regular basis in regular pay scale in terms of the orders dated 28.09.2010 w.e.f. 29.10.2004 [Annexure R-1 supra] and the modified orders dated 14.01.2020 [Annexure A-1] w.e.f. 08.12.2002 so as to avoid the charge of hostile discrimination and to ensure that equals are treated equally. Petitioners being similarly placed incumbents are not treated dissimilarly in the light of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Inaction of State Authorities in granting the benefit of regular appointment as Assistant Librarian to other ex-servicemen including Vikram Chand Katoch and others, who were nominated along with the petitioners initially as Assistant Librarians on contract basis w.e.f. 07.02.2009 and now have been appointed and treated as Assistant Librarians on regular basis, in regular pay scale as per order dated 14.07.2020 w.e.f. 08.12.2002 reveals inherent discrimination between members belonging to one class of ex-servicemen. Moreover, there is no embargo in orders dated 24.07.2010, Annexure P-7, passed by the State Tribunal that the benefit of the judgement in case of Vikram Chand Katoch and others is not to be extended to others similarly placed incumbents and therefore, in absence of any express embargo or restriction not to extend the benefit of the order/judgement to other similar incumbents ; therefore, in the absence of any such embargo /restriction, the petitioners being similarly placed are entitled to the benefit of the order-judgement and are entitled for similar treatment/service benefits as extended to other ex-servicemen, so as to ensure parity and to obviate disparity. The respondents have not been able to show any cogent and convincing ground to establish that petitioners are dissimilar/unequal vis-à-vis Vikram Chand Kaoch and others, who were originally appointed on contract alike the petitioners on 07.02.2009 but in terms of the orders dated 28.09.2010 [Annexure R-1 with rejoinder] were appointed as Assistant Librarian on regular basis in pay scale of Rs.4020-6200 w.e.f. 29.10.2004 and such appointment was again modified on 14.07.2020 [Annexure A-1] as Assistant Librarians on regular basis w.e.f. 08.12.2002. The above facts establish that the petitioners were erroneously appointed as Assistant Librarians on contract basis on 07.02.2009 and they were regularized in the normal course as per the Government Policy in the year 2015. Inorder to give effect to the Statutory Service Rules and the condition in the requisition notice providing for filling the posts of Assistant Librarian {in all categories, unreserved, reserved, including posts meant for sports personnel and ex-servicemen etc} and on regular basis, in regular pay scale and to ensure parity amongst other similarly placed ex-servicemen, once other ex-servicemen, who were are initially appointed as Assistant Librarians on contract in 2009 along with the petitioners have been held entitled to be treated as Assistant Librarians, on regular basis, in pay scale of Rs 4020-6200 in terms of orders dated 28.09.2010 w.e.f. 29.10.2004, and such order was further modified/antedated by treating their appointment as Asssistant Librarians in terms of the orders dated 14.07.2020 w.e.f. 08.12.2002 on regularbasis in regular pay scale, with revised pay fixation then, the petitioners deserve similar treatment, by treating them as Assistant Librarians w.e.f. 08.12.2002 for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits from due date. However, since the petitioners have approached the erstwhile Tribunal in OA, which was converted as CWPOA on 27.12.2018, therefore, the actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for three years period to filing of aforesaid OA-CWPOA and thereafter, in terms of mandate of law in case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274 ; State of Madhya Pradesh andOthers versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, CA No. 4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online S C 641] decided on 18.5.2022 . DIRECTIONS: 8. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in following terms:- (i). Rejection orders dated 12.07.2017 [Annexure A-8] are quashed and set- aside; (ii). Respondents-State Authorities are directed to modify the appointment of the petitioners 1 & 2, Surjit Singh Thakur and Kishore Chand, as Assistant Librarians, on regular basis, in the regular pay scale of Rs 4020-6200/- w.e.f. 08.12.2002 or such like due date with all consequential benefits; (iii). State Authorities are directed to appoint-treat the petitioners herein as Assistant Librarians on regular basis in the regular pay scale and with all service benefits accruing therefrom; on the same analogy on which benefit of regular appointment has been granted to other similarly placed Ex-servicemen, namely Vishal Chand Katoch and others, who were appointed on contract basis on 07.02.2009 along with petitioners ; and same stood modified to regular appointment in terms of orders dated 28.09.2010 w.e.f. 29.06.2004 and further modified on 14.07.2020 w.e.f. 8.12.2002 with all consequential benefits for intents and purposes; (iv). State Authorities are mandated to release all consequential benefits to the petitioners, upon modifying the appointment as Assistant Librarian w.e.f. 08.12.2002 as granted to others with all service benefits including revised retiral benefits; (v). Actual monetary benefits shall accrue for three years prior to filing of petition on 27.12.2018 in terms of the law in case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , followed in Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online SC 641] decided on 18.5.2022. (vi). Failure to comply with the directions contained in (i) to (v) supra, shall mandate the respondents for interest @ 6% per annum beyond 31.12.2025, till realization of benefits ; (vi). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.