JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge The petitioners in both the petitions, being Conductors in the Respondent-Corporation have come up before this Court, seeking similar following reliefs:- i) The respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of applicant after completion of one year with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments. ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to implement their own memo/communication dated 4.2.2017 (annexure A-3) in its true and letter and spirit. iii) That orders passed by the respondent vide which representations of the applicants have been rejected, may be declared null and void as contrary to factual as well legal aspect of the matter, and same may be quashed and set aside. iv) Any other or further orders which this Administrative Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents under law. v) That order passed by the respondents on the representation of applicants may be declared as void and same may be quashed and set aside being contrary to the rules and settled legal position. vi) That entire relevant record of the case may very kindly be summoned from respondents for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Precisely, the case set by Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, is that the petitioners were appointed as Conductors on contract basis in Respondent-Corporation, upon due selection/interview held in the year 2004-2005. 3(i). Grievance of petitioners is that at the time of their initial appointment on contract basis, there was no provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for appointment on contract basis. The aforesaid provision for contractual appointments was incorporated in the Service Regulations, by the Respondent-Corporation on 03.08.2006 [Annexure A-1]. It is the case of the petitioners that once the Respondent- Corporation has given the benefit of regular appointment/regularization after completion of one year’s of contractual service, as per existing practice in the Corporation, then the action of Respondent- Corporation in regularizing the petitioners after about 8 years in the month of December, 2012 was improper. 3(ii). It is the case of the petitioners that once the Respondent- Corporation has given the benefit of regular appointment/regularization after completion of one year’s of contractual service, as per existing practice in the Corporation, then the action of Respondent- Corporation in regularizing the petitioners after about 8 years in the month of December, 2012 was improper. 3(ii). In the above backdrop, Learned Counsel, submits that Respondent-Corporation had appointed petitioners as Conductors, on contract basis, during the years 2004-2005 when, no such provision for appointment on contractual basis existed in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations notified by the Respondent-Corporation at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the Respondent-Corporation took a decision for making contractual employment only on 03.08.2006 and that too the aforesaid contractual mode of employment, incorporated in the regulations was to apply prospectively and the same could not have been applied retrospectively as has been done in the instant case. In these circumstances, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as regular Conductors on completion of one year of contractual service but were regularized in December, 2012 and they are also entitled for service benefits like pay fixation, ACPs, seniority and monetary benefits, etc. in terms of the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020 along with connected matters decided on 09.11.2023, whereby, similarly placed contractual appointees who were initially regularized and have been granted retrospective regularization from the date of completion of one year’s contractual service have been granted to all service benefits of pay fixation, etc. including arrears accruing as a result of retrospective regularization. In nutshell, the petitioners claimed similar service benefit(s) as extended to petitioners in Vikram Singh’s case and others. It is also submitted that the SLP(C) No. 5806 of 2024 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation versus Vikram Singh also stands dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.03.2024. STAND OF RESPONDENT- CORPORATION IN REPLY – AFFIDAVIT: 4. Respondent-Corporation has filed a Reply- Affidavit dated 04.01.2018 of Regional Manager (Legal), Himachal Road Transport Corporation. In reply,the stand taken by Respondent-Corporation is that the appointment on contract basis was made in terms of the Government decision dated 12.12.2003 and therefore, in view of this, it was averred that the petitioners are not entitled to further benefits. Respondent-Corporation has filed a Reply- Affidavit dated 04.01.2018 of Regional Manager (Legal), Himachal Road Transport Corporation. In reply,the stand taken by Respondent-Corporation is that the appointment on contract basis was made in terms of the Government decision dated 12.12.2003 and therefore, in view of this, it was averred that the petitioners are not entitled to further benefits. APPLICATION FILED IN INSTANT PETITION: 5. Petitioners have filed a CMP-T No.1012 of 2024 for early hearing and for intimating the Court that an identical matter stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikram Singh [CWP No. 234 of 2020] against which SLP[C] 5806 of 2024 stands dismissed on 15.03.2024. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Vikram Singh’s case reveals that other similar persons who were initially appointed on contract basis and were regularized and were thereafter granted retrospective regularization from the date of completion of one year of contractual service, then the petitioners are entitled for said benefits. The operative part of the judgment passed in case of Vikram Singh (supra) reads as under:- 10. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to the reply of the respondent-Corporation, wherein it is categorically stated that in pursuance to the Board of Directors 95th meeting held on 02.08.2003 in Item No.4, it was decided to recruit 153 Drivers on contractual basis at Rs.5,000/- per month. Besides the aforesaid, with respect to employees who had been regularized after one year, the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation is that they have been engaged before 12.12.2003 (date of issuance of instruction of State Government). 12. From a perusal of the record, it is interesting to note that in the minutes of the 77th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, held on 26.12.1994, Item No.77.2, had been placed for consideration of the Board of Directors. A perusal whereof reflects that a procedure sought to be adopted for making contractual recruitment had been placed for the consideration of the Board. The aforesaid procedure was sought to be followed post relaxation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in this respect. In the procedure proposed 7 conditions were placed for the consideration of the Board with respect to make a contractual recruitment. Condition No.vii was as follows:- “After completion of one year, the cases will be reviewed for offering regular employment”. The aforesaid procedure was sought to be followed post relaxation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in this respect. In the procedure proposed 7 conditions were placed for the consideration of the Board with respect to make a contractual recruitment. Condition No.vii was as follows:- “After completion of one year, the cases will be reviewed for offering regular employment”. 13. The aforesaid proposal was accepted by the Board, however, the aforesaid condition No.vii had been deleted. Despite the same, a condition in this regard was incorporated in the terms and conditions of appointment. The relevant extract of the condition incorporated in this regard in the appointment letters issued despite the same having been rejected by the Board is being reproduced herein below:- “3. The appointment will be initially for 89 days where after each case will be considered for regular appointment by the appointing authority concerned on merits on his one year performance basis.” It is an admitted fact that regularization of individuals, appointed on contractual basis in pursuance to the Board’s approval in its 77th meeting held on 26.12.1994, was after one year. 14. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to Office order dated 30.06.2014 passed in favour of Hoshiar Singh, a Driver working in the respondent- Corporation. The said individual was appointed as a Driver on 30.03.2001 (contract basis) as per the terms and conditions of his appointment, his services were to be regularized after one year. However, the services of the said individual were regularized on 18.04.2011. Being aggrieved by the belated regularization, the said individual had approached the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, who after considering the case, allowed his regularization on completion of one year service in terms of the condition of appointment. The Managing Director further held that since with respect to the working of Hoshiar Singh, there was never any objection raised by the respondent-Corporation rather it was added to the same that the said individual’s contract had been renewed, therefore, there was no requirement of assessing the merit of Hoshiar Singh. 27. The recruitments in question, as has already been stated supra, had been initiated in furtherance of approval accorded in this regard in the 95th Board meeting held on 02.08.2003 prior to issuance of instructions dated 12.12.2003 and its adoption by the Board on 03.08.2006. 27. The recruitments in question, as has already been stated supra, had been initiated in furtherance of approval accorded in this regard in the 95th Board meeting held on 02.08.2003 prior to issuance of instructions dated 12.12.2003 and its adoption by the Board on 03.08.2006. Therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners, being similarly situate as their counterparts who had been appointed earlier with respect to whom parity was being sought, deserves to be allowed on this account also. 28. Even otherwise prior to 2010, there is no Regularization Policy of the State which has been adopted by the respondent- Corporation. Hence, on this account also the respondent-Corporation will have to uniformly regularize contractual appointees after one year. 29. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in the claim of petitioners and same is accepted, whereas plea of the respondents-Corporation is rejected being not sustainable. Petitioners are held entitled for regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. However, we are not awarding any interest thereon, at this stage. The consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioners within one month from today, arrears whereof shall be paid to the petitioners on or before 30.04.2024, failing which the respondents- Corporation shall also be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. 5(i). Following the mandate of law in case of Vikram Singh (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed judgment in CWPOA No.5348 of 2020, titled Gurcharan Singh and Others versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, decided on 16.10.2024 directed the Respondents-Corporation to extend similar relief as granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh's case. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- 6. It has fairly been submitted by learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, that similar issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, in a bunch of petitions, lead whereof, is CWPOA No.2343. of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation' vide order dated 09.11.2023. Para-29 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 29. of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation' vide order dated 09.11.2023. Para-29 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 29. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in the claim of petitioners and same is accepted, whereas plea of the respondents-Corporation is rejected being not sustainable. Petitioners are held entitled for regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. However, we are not awarding any interest thereon, at this stage. The consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioners within one month from today, arrears whereof shall be paid to the petitioners on or before 30.4.2024, failing which the respondents- Corporation shall also be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum." 7. In such situation, petitioners herein are also entitled for the same relief, as granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh's case supra. Ordered accordingly. It is further clarified that consequential benefits alongwith arrears be granted to the petitioners, on or before 28.2.2025. 6. Upon listing of this case today, Learned Counsel for the Respondents-Corporation does not dispute the mandate of law in case of Virkam Singh (supra), which has been followed in case of Gurcharan Singh (supra). Further, Learned Counsel for Respondents-Corporation does not dispute the above position and entitlements of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid judgements. 7. On query by this Court, Learned Counsel for the Corporation does not dispute that benefit of judgement in Vikram Singh’s case has been extended to many other similar incumbents by granting service benefits, including admissible arrears from date of retrospective regularization. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Learned Counsel submits that the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 156th meeting held on 28.06.2024 has decided to grant the benefit of the judgement in Vikram Singh’s case to all similarly placed contractual employees [Drivers and Conductors]. 8. Besides the above, Learned Counsel for petitioner relies upon the judgement in Narender Singh and another versus Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, CWP No. 5279 of 2022, giving benefit of deemed retrospective regular appointment from due date, i.e. the date of completion of one year of contractual appointment for all intents and purposes. 8. Besides the above, Learned Counsel for petitioner relies upon the judgement in Narender Singh and another versus Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, CWP No. 5279 of 2022, giving benefit of deemed retrospective regular appointment from due date, i.e. the date of completion of one year of contractual appointment for all intents and purposes. Learned Counsel for Respondent-Corporation states that judgement in case of Narender Singh is in process of being implemented. The operative part of the judgement in the case of Narinder Singh [supra], which was passed in view of the judgement in the case of Vikram Singh [supra] reads as under: 10. At this stage, it would be expedient to refer to Section 45, which relates to the power to make regulations which read as under:- “45. Power to make regulations.— (1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the [Board] under section 10; (b) the time and place of meetings of the [Board] and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings; (c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and [other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Officer and the Financial Adviser or, as the case may be, the Chief Accounts Officer- cum-Financial Adviser; [(d) the issue of passes to the employees of the Corporation and other persons under section 19; (e) the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes under Section 19. 11(i) It would be appropriate to refer to the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class I, II, III and IV) Service Regulations of notified on 23.3.1996 [referred to as Service Regulation of 1996], as under:- HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SHIMLA- 171003 No. HO:9E-22/95 (A) Dated. 11(i) It would be appropriate to refer to the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class I, II, III and IV) Service Regulations of notified on 23.3.1996 [referred to as Service Regulation of 1996], as under:- HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SHIMLA- 171003 No. HO:9E-22/95 (A) Dated. Shimla-171003, 23.3.1996 "ORDER" In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Board of Himachal Road Transport Corporation with the prior concurrence of the Government of Himachal Pradesh (in the Transport Department) is pleased to make the following regulations in regard to the following matters, namely:- (i) The method of recruitment of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-III II and IV Services, (ii) The qualifications and experience necessary for appointment to such service and posts: (iii) Certain conditions of service of persons appointed to such service and posts for the purpose, inter-alia of promotion; appointment, probation, confirmation and seniority respectively. PART-I GENERAL: Short Title and Commencements; 1. (a) These regulations may be called the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain conditions of service Regulations) 1996 (b) These shall come into force with immediate effect. Provided, however, that nothing in these regulations shall apply in so far as the posts of Managing Director, I.A.S. Executive Director, LA.S., Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officers are concerned, as appointments to these three categories of posts are made by the State Government Under Section 14 and are governed under a separate set of regulations framed and enforced Under Section 44 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 as amended from time to time. DEFINITIONS: 2. In these regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. (a) "Act" means the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 as amended from time to time. (b) “Corporation" means the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Himachal Pradesh. (c) "Chairman" and "Board" means the Chairman and Board of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. (d) "Appointing Authority" in relation to the posts means the Authority competent to make appointment to the posts. (e) "State Government" means the Government of Himachal Pradesh. (f) Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director or Head of the Organization" means the Chief Executive Officer or the Managing Director, appointed by the State Government Under Section 14 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 as amended from time to time. (e) "State Government" means the Government of Himachal Pradesh. (f) Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director or Head of the Organization" means the Chief Executive Officer or the Managing Director, appointed by the State Government Under Section 14 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 as amended from time to time. (g) "Annexure" means the annexures appended to these regulations: (h) “Direct appointment" means the appointment made otherwise than by promotion from amongst the members of the service, but includes transfer on deputation of a person already in the service of the State Government or of other Corporate bodies or appointment of Stipendaries: (i) "Member" means a member of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class- I,II,III and IV)Service. AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS: 3. All appointments to the posts in the service shall be made by such authorities of the Corporation as are listed in Annexure "A" to these regulations and on the recommendations of the requisite Departmental Promotion Committee or Selection Committee provided for in Annexure "B". Provided that nothing in these regulations shall affect in any manner the authority of the Corporation to modify Annexure "A" and "B" at its discretion or as may be considered expedient from time to time. PART-11 CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF SERVICE PROBATION PERIOD OF MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE 4.(i) Members of the service who are appointed/promoted against permanent vacancies shall on appointment/promotion to any post in the service shall remain on probation for a period of two years in the first instance. (ii) If the work and conduct of any member during the period of probation, in the opinion of appointing authority, be not satisfactory, the said authority may dispense with the service or revert him to his former post if he has been appointed to that post otherwise than direct recruitment (iii) On the completion of the period of probation of any member the appointing authority prescribed in regulation 3 may confirm such member to his appointment or if his work and conduct has, in the opinion of the appointing authority not been satisfactory, may dispense with his services, or revert him to his former post, if he has been appointed otherwise than by direct recruitment or may extend the period of probation, and thereafter pass such orders on the expiry of first period of probation. 17. 17. INTERPRETATION: If any question arises as to the interpretation of these regulations, the same shall be decided by the Corporation, in consultation with the State Government where necessary and the decisions so arrived at shall be final and binding on all concerned. By order and in the Name of Board of Directors (H.R.T.C.) Sd/- YOGESH KHANNA (IAS) Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171003. 11(ii) In the background of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Service Regulations of 1996, Annexure-41 pertaining to the Drivers [Heavy Vehicles/Light Vehicles] read as under:- RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES FOR THE POST OF DRIVERS IN HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. Annexure -41 1. Name of the post (i) Drivers (Heavy vehicles 2. No. of posts (ii) Drivers (Light Vehicles/Staff Cars) @ 1.65 Persons per bus 3. Classification CLASS-III 4. Scale of pay Rs.5910-20200+2400 G.Pay for Heavy vehicles 5. Whether selection post or non selection post Non-Selection Post 6. Age for direct recruitment (See proviso for age relaxation in Annexure "D" on page 109) 18 to 45 years 7. Minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment 7. Drivers Heavy Vehicles On the basis of trade test and Interview from persons (i) Valid Driving Licence for a Heavy Transport (ii) Atleast 5 years Experience of driving of heavy Vehicles (iii) should be atleast Middle pass. However, Preference will be given to Matriculate (iv) Minimum height 160 Cms or above. The post of Light vehicle drivers shall be a dying cadre. Only heavy vehicle drivers shall be recruited. 8. Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct No recruitment will apply in the case of the promotees No 9. Period of probation (if any) As per Regulation-4 10. Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation/transfer an the percentage of vacancies to be filled in by the various methods. 90% by direct recruitment 10% by promotion 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made By promotion from amongst Light vehicles Drivers having Minimum 10 years service as such and possessing Heavy Duty Driving Licence for five Years subject to qualifying Driving test 12. 90% by direct recruitment 10% by promotion 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made By promotion from amongst Light vehicles Drivers having Minimum 10 years service as such and possessing Heavy Duty Driving Licence for five Years subject to qualifying Driving test 12. So far as the claim of the petitioners that they deserve to be treated as regular Drivers in the Respondent-Corporation from the date of their initial contractual appointment in the month of November/December, 2004, (Annexure P-1), carries force, for the reason, that once in exercise of the powers vested in the State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Respondent-Corporation had framed the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Service [Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Regulations, 1996 [referred to as Service Regulations of 1996] whereby, the only permissible mode of appointment to Class I, II, III and IV posts, including the post of Drivers was only on regular basis in regular pay scale then, the Respondent- Corporation could not have acted in violation of their Service Regulations by giving appointment to the petitioners on contractual basis. Accordingly, the petitioners have a right to be treated as “deemed regular drivers” from the date of initial appointment (on contract) in accordance with Service Regulations of 1996. 13. Once the Service Regulations of 1996 as referred to above, were in force till 2.8.2006 i.e. prior to the issuance of Amended Regulation of 2006; then, the applicability, scope and benefits accruing under the Service Regulations of 1996 could not have been tinkered with by a mere executive decision taken by the State Government on dated 12.12.2003,introducing contractual mode/nomenclature of appointment in posts under the State Government. 14. 14. Moreover, once the Respondent-Corporation was the creation of a statute i.e. Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 and the Respondent- Corporation in exercise of Section 45 of the Act issued the Service Regulations of 1996 introducing regular mode/nomenclature of appointment to various posts [including the posts of the petitioners i.e. Drivers in terms of the Service Regulations of 1996 then also, even if the State Government had taken a decision on 12.12.2023],to introduce the contractual mode/nomenclature of appointments, then also, the decision of the State Government could neither apply nor be enforced in the Respondent-Corporation unless and until the same was adopted and made applicable by the Board of Directors notifying amendment to the existing Service Regulations of 1996, which was only notified on 3.8.2006. Further the Amendment of 2006 could not apply retrospectively to the disadvantage of petitioners who were appointed in 2004. 15. The Amended Regulations dated 3.8.2006 were to apply prospectively and the same could not have been applied retrospectively, to the prejudice of the petitioners, who were appointed in the month November/December, 2004 in the Corporation. 16. So far as the contention of the Corporation in the reply that once the petitioners were appointed as Drivers in November/December, 2004, on contractual basis, and the petitioners accepted their contractual appointments and continued to work till their regularization in the year 2012 then, the petitioners were estopped to claim a different status by filing the writ petition in the year 2022. This plea of the Respondent-Corporation, is without any substance, for the reason, that once a right had accrued to the petitioner, on the basis of Service Regulations of 1996, whereby the regular mode of appointment existed and these regulations, 1996 for appointment on regular basis in regular pay scale then, the issuance of Amended Regulations on 3.8.2006 [introducing contractual mode/nomenclature regular appointment can neither take away nor curtail the right of the petitioners for regular appointment under Service Regulations of 1996. Further, the plea of estoppel cannot operate against the statute i.e. Service Regulations of 1996 which permitted regular appointment, the regular pay scale for the petitioners. Moreover, the right of regular appointment flowing from stature i.e. Service Regulations of 1996 cannot be tinkered with on the plea of estoppel, when no estoppel can be invoked or applied against the statute. 19. Moreover, the right of regular appointment flowing from stature i.e. Service Regulations of 1996 cannot be tinkered with on the plea of estoppel, when no estoppel can be invoked or applied against the statute. 19. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, referred to above and the factum of the right of regular appointment in as regular pay scale, as Driver(s), which had accrued under the Statute, Service Regulations of 1996 which were in force on the date of commencement of selection process [in December 2003] and its completion and was also operative on date of appointment of petitioners in November-December, 2004, (Annexure P-1) i.e. prior to the coming into force of the Amended Service Regulations of dated 3.8.2006; coupled with the fact that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case of Vikram Singh and Ravinder Kumar (supra) ,therefore, this Court is of the view that the present petition needs to be allowed, by directing the Respondent(s) to treat the petitioners, as regular Drivers, in regular pay scale with all service benefits as admissible to regular appointees from the date of initial contractual appointments as Drivers, with all service benefits. 20. Given as above, the present petition is allowed and the Respondent-Corporation/Respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as “deemed regular Drivers” in the Respondent-Corporation from the date of their initial contractual appointment was November/December, 2004, in applicable regular pay scale of Driver(s), and also by modifying their regularization conferred as per the policy of 2012, (Annexure P-2), with all service benefits from date of initial appointment(s). 21. The Respondent-Corporation/respondents shall extend all service benefits like seniority, eligibility towards Assured Career Progression Scheme, increments, pay fixation and other attending service benefits to the petitioner notionally w.e.f. November/December, 2004 onwards. 9. Respondent-Corporation has not pointed out any eventuality as to why and in what manner the case of petitioners is different or dissimilar to the case of incumbents in Vikram Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Narinder Singh’s cases (supra). 10. 9. Respondent-Corporation has not pointed out any eventuality as to why and in what manner the case of petitioners is different or dissimilar to the case of incumbents in Vikram Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Narinder Singh’s cases (supra). 10. Taking into account the totality of circumstances and the mandate of law in Vikram Singh’s case, which has attained finality coupled with the fact that the Respondent-Corporation has extended benefits to many others on analogy of petitioners in case of Vikram Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Narinder Singh’s cases (supra) by granting retrospective regularization/regular appointment from the date of completion of one year of contractual service with all consequential benefits [including pay fixation, higher pay scale, ACPs and other service benefits], therefore, the petitioners being similarly placed deserve similar treatment/benefits. Petitioners being similarly placed cannot be treated differently. Treating “equals as unequals; results in hostile discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. DRECTIONS:- 11. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i). Respondent-Corporation is directed to consider and extend all admissible-service benefits to the petitioners herein, without discrimination as given to others in terms of the judgement(s,) in case of Vikram Singh and Gurcharan Singh and Narinder Singh’s cases (supra); (ii) Directions contained in case of Vikram Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Narender Singh (supra) qua retrospective regularization shall mutatis mutandis apply to the petitioners herein; (iii). Petitioner [Gauri Shankar] has filed OA No. 4665 of 2017 converted as CWPOA No. 2838 of 2020 and petitioner [Amit Kumar] has filed OA No. 4661 of 2017 converted as CWPOA No. 2884 of 2020 have filed respective petitions on 02.09.2017; therefore, the petitioners are held entitled for all consequential benefits from due date but actual monetary benefits shall be released for 3 years prior to filing of above petitions, in terms of the 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 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 Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online SC 641] decided on 18.5.2022. (iv). (iv). Respondents are directed to release all consequential benefits to petitioners from due date; on or before 31.12.2025, failing which, Respondents-Corporation shall be liable for interest @ 6% per annum till realization; (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as pending miscellaneous applications), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.