JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner [Hans Raj], a former Lecturer in Chemistry in GSSS Dasehra, has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the person working against the applicant to some other place and re-engage the applicant with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the applicant may kindly be allowed to work as Lecturer Chemistry at Govt. Sr. Sec. School Dasehra Distt. Mandi on PTA grant-in-aid basis with all consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Lecturer in Chemistry by PTA of GSSS Dasehra, District Mandi on 21.09.2007. Based on a complaint, the services of the petitioner were disengaged on 01.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved against his termination, the petitioner filed CWP No1066 of 2009, on which, this Court passed an order on 02.08.2012, directing the petitioner to make a representation before Chairman-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mandi. In compliance to Court Orders dated 02.08.2012, the petitioner submitted a representation, on which, the Chairman-cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mandi, passed an order on 09.09.2013, by recording finding that the selection/appointment of the petitioner [Hans Raj] as Lecturer in Chemistry, by PTA Committee of GSSS Dasehra on 21.09.2007 was held to be valid and was made strictly in terms of merit. Pursuant to orders dated 09.09.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Respondent no 2-Director Higher Education issued an order on 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1], directing to re-engage the petitioner as a Lecturer (Chemistry) in GSSS Dasehra. While passing of this order, the Director Higher Education mandated that one Sh. Rakesh Kumar Azad, a regular employee, who was posted as a Lecturer (Chemistry) in GSSS Dasehra be transferred to GSSS Kotkhai [B] District Shimla, and this place of posting was modified to GSSS Deot, against vacancy. 2(i). After passing of order of re-engagement orders on 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1], the petitioner made a representation for permitting him to rejoin as Lecturer in Chemistry in GSSS Dasehra but the joining of petitioner was deferred, for the reason, that the regular incumbent posted in GSSS Dasehra namely, Rakesh Kumar Azad, filed a CWP No.8527 of 2013 [Annexure A-2], whereby, his transfer orders were stayed by this Court. It is averred that in terms of communication dated 22.05.2014 [Annexure A-5/T] issued by Principal Secretary [Education] a High Powered Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary and aforesaid Committee also decided to re-engage all PTA provided teachers who were engaged before 31.12.2007 and whose services were disengaged to be re-engaged in case, they were eligible under Recruitment and Promotion Rules; and GIA was also directed to be released in their favour. In the above background, the petitioner filed the instant petition before State Administrative Tribunal, seeking re-engagement and release of grant-in-aid on the basis of the orders dated 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1], with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY 3. Petitioner filed an Original Application No. 1400 of 2018 in March 2018, before State Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the filing of the Original Application, the State Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 11.04.2018, directing Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, to consider transferring the private respondent No.4, Rakesh Kumar Azad, to a suitable station, so as to facilitate the continuance of petitioner as a Lecturer in Chemistry on PTA, basis in GSSS Dasehra, District Mandi on the same terms and conditions, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner as well as to the private respondent. The Tribunal directed the respondents to file reply to instant petition. Upon abolition of Tribunal, matter was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 4078 of 2020 and this matter was listed before this Court on 25.02.2022 and was then listed on various occasions. 3(i). Respondents 1 to 3 filed Reply-Affidavit on 04.09.2023, whereby, the factual aspects that petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry in GSSS Dasehra, District Mandi on PTA was admitted. Reply-Affidavit further indicated that a complaint alleging irregularity in appointment was received and based on the said complaint, the services of the petitioner were disengaged but the allegations in complaint were negated by Chairman-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mandi in the order passed on 09.09.2013, with specific mandate that appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in (Chemistry) in GSSS Dasehra was valid and was made strictly on merit. 3(ii). 3(ii). Reply-affidavit further indicates that after passing of orders dated 09.09.2013 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Director of Higher Education issued an order on 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1] directing reengagement of petitioner under PTA in GSSS Dasehra and regular incumbent who was already serving in said School, namely, Rakesh Kumar Azad since 02.03.2012, was ordered to be transferred from GSSS Dasehra to GSSS Kotkhai [Boys] and these posting orders modified to GSSS Deot, in District Shimla by respondents. Reply-affidavit indicates that aforesaid regular incumbent, Rakesh Kumar Azad, assailed his transfer orders in CWP No. 8527 of 2013, and his transfer was stayed by this Court. Para No.3 of Reply-Affidavit states that petitioner was called for personal hearing by Director of Higher Education but due to stay orders, the petitioner was not permitted to actually join as Lecturer in Chemistry in GSSS Dasehra by the respondents. In response to CMP (T) 1096 of 2021 filed by petitioner, the State Authorities stated that due to pendency of SLP {converted as Civil Appeal No 2813 of 2017, filed against the judgment dated 09.12.2014 in LPA No 504 of 2012} in case of Chander Mohan Negi, the claim for re-engagement/taking over was not be acceded to by the department. In the above background, respondents have prayed for the dismissal of writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER IN REJOINDER 4. In rejoinder the petitioner reiterated the averments made in writ petition and denied the contrary averments made in the Reply-Affidavit. In rebuttal, the petitioner stated that the SLP in Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017, titled as Chander Mohan Negi and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, stood decided on 17.04.2020 [Annexure A-6]. However, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CWP filed by Rakesh Kumar Azad, stood disposed of in the year 2021. It was submitted that the petitioner deserves to be reengaged with continuity in service, contractual status and regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018 as given to others and junior by the department. 5. Heard Mr. R. L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R Sidhu, Learned Counsels for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed, for the following reasons:- 6(i). R. L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R Sidhu, Learned Counsels for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed, for the following reasons:- 6(i). Petitioner was engaged as a Lecturer in Chemistry by PTA of GSSS Dasehra, District Mandi on 21.09.2007 and his services were disengaged on 01.10.2008, on the basis of complaint submitted to respondents. This complaint was duly adjudicated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Mandi, as per orders dated 09.09.2013, with the specific finding that the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Chemistry in GSSS Dasehra on 20/21.09.2007, was valid and has been made strictly in terms of merit. In this background, once the petitioner has been held to be validly appointed and he also possessed the requisite qualifications as required under the Rules for post of Lecturer in Chemistry and the order of SDM had also attained finality then, the action of the State Authorities in denying re-engagement and other service benefits, including the right to work and to earn salary to the petitioner, despite issuance of orders dated 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1] and the orders dated 11.04.2018 passed by this Court is only to deprive him of the resultant service benefits, but the denial of such benefits to the petitioner is uncalled for and such inaction cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 6(ii). State Authorities cannot deny the benefit of re-engagement and other service benefits to the petitioner due to the filing of CWP No. 8527 of 2013 by Rakesh Kumar Azad, a regular employee who was posted in GSSS Dasehra, District Mandi, where, petitioner was directed to be re-engaged by Director of Education on 21.10.2013 {Annexure A-1} for the reason, that CWP No.8527 of 2013 filed by Rakesh Kumar Azad [supra] stands disposed of on 01.10.2021. Even though the writ petition was disposed of on 1.10.2021 yet the Respondent No.2 while filing the Reply-Affidavit on 10.05.2022 in CMP (T) 1096 of 2021 and even in the Reply dated 04.09.2023 to the writ petition has evaded this material aspect. Even though the writ petition was disposed of on 1.10.2021 yet the Respondent No.2 while filing the Reply-Affidavit on 10.05.2022 in CMP (T) 1096 of 2021 and even in the Reply dated 04.09.2023 to the writ petition has evaded this material aspect. In these circumstances, the action of the State Authorities in denying the re-engagement to the petitioner on non-existent facts reveal patent arbitrariness and unreasonableness in State action, which cannot in any manner be permitted to operate. In these circumstances, the denial of re-engagement and continuity in service with service benefits, is deprecated and is set aside. 6(iii). Plea of the petitioner for re-engagement on the basis of orders on 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1] has force, for the reason, that in a similar situation, this Court had directed re-engagement of another incumbent in CWP No. 5491 of 2023, titled as Parveen Kumar versus State of H.P. & Ors, decided on 24.11.2023, in the following terms :- “9. It is not in dispute that being eligible and upon due selection, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer/ PTA (Physics) on 28.07.2007 and he worked as such TGT, termination on 03.01.2009 by applying new norms illegally. It is not in dispute that in terms of Government Notification, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed on 28.12.2014 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the termination was set aside. It is also factually admitted/not disputed that after setting aside of termination in 2014, the respondents could not reinstate the petitioner due to the order of status quo qua appointment/ regularization etc, in SLP filed in 2014, which was withdrawn/ dismissed in the year 2020. 10. It is also factually admitted/not disputed that after setting aside of termination in 2014, the respondents could not reinstate the petitioner due to the order of status quo qua appointment/ regularization etc, in SLP filed in 2014, which was withdrawn/ dismissed in the year 2020. 10. Now, as per reply, the first plea of the State Authorities, set-up by the respondents, in not reinstating the petitioner is that “at present the Science Classes are not running in Government Senior Secondary School Deogi, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, due to zero enrolment and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed.” This plea of the State Authorities, is without any substance, for the reason; firstly, once the termination dated 03.01.2009, has been set-aside by the Appellate Authority-SDM concerned at 28.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) then, on setting aside of termination, the resultant benefit of reinstatement shall follow; and secondly, the denial of reinstatement after setting aside of termination [dated 03.01.2009] on 28.12.2014 (Annexure P-2), from 2014 till dismissal of SLP in 2020 cannot be attributed to the petitioner; thirdly, the denial of consideration for reinstatement, due to pendency of SLP from 2014 to 2020 after dismissal of SLP in 2020 to 2023 (stand in reply) amounts to depriving the petitioner of his reinstatement, without any fault attributable to petitioner; fourthly, the denial of reinstatement amounts to nullifying the orders of appellate authority dated 28.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) which is impermissible on facts as well as law; fifthly, once the appropriate order dated 28.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) has attained finality and the same has not been set- aside till day, then, the denial of reinstatement of petitioner on same capacity, as Lecturer (Physics) either in GSSS Deogi or any other post elsewhere in the State amounts to rendering the appealable order dated 28.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) which directed reinstatement, as nugatory, otiose, inoperative and will amount to legalizing the illegal action of alleged termination, even after acceptance of appeal filed by the petitioner, wherein termination was set-aside and petitioner was directed to be reinstated, which shall amount to penalizing the petitioner without any fault of petitioner; sixthly, when, once the termination of petitioner on 03.01.2009 was void ab initio by applying the new- revised criteria prescribed in 2008, which was set aside by High Court in various cases and thereafter, the incumbents, alike petitioner who were eligible under Rules and were selected and appointed but were erroneously removed/terminated were given opportunity to make claim for reinstatement in 2014 then, the petitioner on acceptance of appeal in 2014 is entitled to reinstatement but denial is illegal; seventhly, the stand of State Authorities in denying reinstatement, on the ground, that presently the classes are not running in Government eligible under Rules and were selected and appointed but were erroneously removed/terminated were given opportunity to make claim for reinstatement in 2014 then, the petitioner on acceptance of appeal in 2014 is entitled to reinstatement but denial is illegal; seventhly, the stand of State Authorities in denying reinstatement, on the ground, that presently the classes are not running in Government Senior Secondary School Deogi, Tehsil Nirmand is without any substance, for the rights and interest of the petitioner are to be restored as on the date of illegal termination dated 03.01.2009 and not the present situation and therefore, the stand of the respondents denying the re- engagement/re-instatement is on the face of it, untenable, on facts as well as in law. 11. In addition to above discussion, the second plea of the State Authorities and one more aspect needs to be examined. Notably, the pleas of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be re-engaged/ re-instated as the PTA policy stands closed in 2008 and due to no-zero enrolment in GSSS Deogi is without any substance and suffers from perversity and non-application of mind, for the reason that, the State Authorities have decided to confer contractual status under the Government to all PTA teachers on completion of seven years of service. In this process, once the junior PTA- Lecturers (School) (Physics) i.e. the subject of petitioner and junior PTA (School) in other subjects have been converted/brought into Government Contract. Moreover, on completion of seven years service the contractual PTA teachers (TGTs Lecturers) were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2018; then, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated as Lecturer (Physics) w.e.f. 01.04.2018; by giving seniority on PTA-Lecturer (Physics) w.e.f. the date of initial appointment on 28.07.2007; and then deemed contractual status as Lecturer (Annexure P-4) from the date of completion of seven years of PTA since 28.07.2014 and then, the deemed regularization as Lecturer (Physics) from 01.04.2018 for all intents and purposes in terms of the mandate of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, and other connected matters, titled as Yashwant Singh & Ors. versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., decided on 31.08.2022, against which the SLP filed by the State i.e. Special Leave Petition (C) 6966 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Yashwant Singh & Ors., also stands dismissed on 24.04.2023 and the judgment in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra) also stands implemented. versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., decided on 31.08.2022, against which the SLP filed by the State i.e. Special Leave Petition (C) 6966 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Yashwant Singh & Ors., also stands dismissed on 24.04.2023 and the judgment in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra) also stands implemented. 12. Notwithstanding, the above, another plea is the reply that “no appointment/ recruitment can be made without complying with Rules” is not in dispute; and this pleas is untenable for the reason, that in instant case, the petitioner, being eligible, after due selection was appointed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules on 28.07.2007, who was illegally terminated on acceptance of appeal on 28.12.2014, (Annexure p-2) is seeking reinstatement in service with all attending benefits w.e.f. 28.07.2007, when, other similar and even Junior Lecturers- Post Graduate Teachers appointed, under PTA by the Respondents under the H.P. Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teachers Association Rules 2006 and the eligibility under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of PGT - Lecturer (School Cadre) have continued in service; were given contractual status and then regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018, in terms of the judgment, in case of Yashwant Singh (supra) which stands implemented also and moreover, when, the petitioner was claiming reinstatement, on setting aside of termination and the petitioner was not seeking recruitment/appointment on afresh basis. 13. In view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed; with following directions:- (i). Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as PGT Lecturer (School Cadre) (Physics) w.e.f. 28.07.2007 with continuity in service with all consequential benefits, forthwith; (ii). Consequent upon reinstatement, the Respondents are directed to consider and extend all consequential- attending benefits including seniority and continuity with post service, within two months of reinstatement as directed hereinabove; (iii) Respondents are directed to extend deemed contractual status and regularization, as given to other similar Teachers-Lecturers appointed a PTA along with and subsequent to the petitioner in terms of the mandate in the case of Yashwant Singh, (supra) was 01.04.2018 with all service benefits.” 6(iv). Notably, once the case of the petitioner is pari materia to the case of Parveen Kumar a Lecturer in Physics and the Respondents-State Authorities have also issued an order on 03.07.2024 {Taken on record} granting him the benefits of reengagement with continuity in service as Lecturer w.e.f. 28.07.2007 and also the resultant benefit of conferment of contractual status and regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018 on the principles laid down in the case of Yashwant Kumar {CWP No 342 of 2021, against which SLP © No 6966 of 2023 also stands dismissed on 24.04.2023 and the judgment stands implemented ; and the petitioner is similarly placed therefore, the denial of similar treatment to the petitioner is certainly discriminatory and the action of the State Authorities-Respondents in treating “equals as unequal” is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6(v). In an identical fact-situation, once the service of similar incumbent, namely, Ashwani Kumar, who was engaged as Lecturer Physics by PTA Hamirpur was disengaged and he had filed a CWP No. 7525 of 2012 assailing his termination order dated 08.10.2008 and the said incumbent was re-engaged as Lecturer Physics on PTA basis by shifting/transferring one Shri Manohar Lal, a regular incumbent to another school [vide orders dated 01.07.2021 Annexure A-7] and was granted resultant service benefits therefore, the petitioner being akin to Ashwani Kumar [supra], is entitled for similar treatment. 6(vi). Denial of re-engagement and continuity in service to petitioner amounts to rendering the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate as nugatory, otiose and inoperative. Even, denial of benefits shall amount to legalizing the inaction of state and shall result in giving leverage and premium to the Respondents herein for their inaction(s) and lethargy by raking up the plea for denying the benefits, on non-existent grounds (firstly, since the date of decision of SLP in 2020 and secondly, the disposal of CWP filed by Rakesh Kumar Azad in 2021, as referred to above} cannot be permitted to operate and in these scenario, the State action is deprecated. 6(vii). While dealing with a similar matter, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.210 of 2021, titled as Jimmy Thakur vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others directing to re-engage the teacher, in the following terms:- “2. Petitioner was engaged as D.P.E. by Parent Teachers Association (P.T.A.) at Govt. 6(vii). While dealing with a similar matter, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.210 of 2021, titled as Jimmy Thakur vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others directing to re-engage the teacher, in the following terms:- “2. Petitioner was engaged as D.P.E. by Parent Teachers Association (P.T.A.) at Govt. Sen Sec. School, Nimelary, District Mandi, H.P., on the basis of selection process undertaken on 20.09.2007. His services were subsequently dis-engaged on the allegation that the selection process had not been undertaken in terms of the prevalent rules. Subsequently, the inquiry was conducted and it was found that the selection of the petitioner was in terms of the prevalent rules. Still, the petitioner was not re- engaged. 7. Prayer being innocuous is allowed. Petition is accordingly, disposed of, with the direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on re-engagement of the petitioner as D.P.E. on P.T.A.-G.I.A. basis by passing a detailed speaking order within four weeks from today. Needless to say, that respondent No.2, will take into consideration the previous order passed by the said authority in April, 2015.” Factual matrix reveals that the petitioner being eligible as per the applicable Rules was engaged as Lecturer in Chemistry, by the PTA of GSSS Dasehra on 21.09.2007 but his services were abruptly dispensed with by the Respondent-State Authorities on 01.10.2008 by visiting him with civil consequences, without giving prior notice, without giving personal hearing and by giving complete go-bye to the principles of natural justice, despite his eligibility for the post. Material on record reveals that the termination was made on the basis of a complaint, which stands negativated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate [Sadar], District Mandi on 09.09.2013. Pursuant to order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, even the Respondent No 2 issued an order on 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1] directing re-engagement but in vain. Even during the pendency of these proceedings an order was passed on 11.04.2018 to consider his claim for engagement but in vain. Pursuant to order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, even the Respondent No 2 issued an order on 21.10.2013 [Annexure A-1] directing re-engagement but in vain. Even during the pendency of these proceedings an order was passed on 11.04.2018 to consider his claim for engagement but in vain. The benefit of re-engagement and resultant benefits was denied to the petitioner on twin grounds, firstly, that the post of Lecturer [Chemistry] in GSSS Dasehra, where he was appointed, was filled up by regular incumbent, namely, Rakesh Kumar Azad, who was transferred to GSSS Kotkhai and later to GSSS Deot (Shimla) but aforesaid incumbent had CWP No. 8527 of 2013 in which his transfer was stayed and the aforesaid matter was sub judice and secondly, the matter regarding grant of contractual status regularization to PTA-GIA appointees was sub judice before the Honble Supreme Court in SLP, which was converted as Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017, Chander Mohan Negi and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Notably, in view of the intervening and subsequent events arising during the pendency of the instant petition, the aforesaid twin pleas of the State Authorities has turned out to be non- existent, in view of the fact that the case filed by Rakesh Kumar Azad [CWP No. 8527 of 2013] stands disposed of on 1.10.2021 and the case of Chander Mohan Negi stood decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.04.2020 [Annexure A-6]. Pertinently, after the decision of aforesaid cases in the year 2020/2021, the State Authorities have failed to extend the benefit of re-engagement and to accord continuity in service, contractual status and regularization, as given to others, including the juniors incumbents as Lecturer [Chemistry] and Lecturers in other subjects. Pertinently, after the decision of aforesaid cases in the year 2020/2021, the State Authorities have failed to extend the benefit of re-engagement and to accord continuity in service, contractual status and regularization, as given to others, including the juniors incumbents as Lecturer [Chemistry] and Lecturers in other subjects. Denial of reengagement amounts to making petitioner to face prejudice and to be penalized for the total lethargy and the inaction of the State Authorities, but without any fault attributable to the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner was fully eligible for the post of Lecturer and once the termination was set-aside by SDM concerned on 09.09.2013 and even Director of Education had issued an order on 21.10.2013 directing the reengagement of the petitioner so as to restore his rightful claim and to get accruable benefits, which could not be granted due to the stigmatic and punitive termination on 01.10.2008 and once in similar fact-situation, after the setting aside of termination, the benefit of reengagement as Lecturer on PTA-GIA {on deemed or actual basis} with continuity and seniority and resultant conferment of contractual status on completion of seven years of service as teacher under PTA-GIA and thereafter the regularization was granted by applying the principles in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra) w.e.f. 01.04.2018 has been extended to many other similarly placed and junior Lecturers, including Parveen Kumar, Ashwani Kumar (supra) therefore, the petitioner deserves similar treatment. Treating the petitioner, who was equal as unequal cannot be permitted. Moreover, once foundation facts pleaded by the Respondents for denying the benefit of re-engagement {deemed or actual, as the case may be} and other benefits have become non-existent due to subsequent events therefore, the action of the Respondents-State Authorities in discriminating the petitioner by denying him the rightful claims and legal entitlements as extended to others, including juniors speaks volumes of state inaction and accordingly, denial of benefits cannot sustain. Accordingly, in view of the material on record, the petitioner is held entitled for the benefit of re-engagement in service as Lecturer [Chemistry] {deemed or actual} with continuity in service w.e.f. 21.09.2007 with salary under PTA-GIA and the resultant contractual status on completion of seven years of service as Lecturer PTA-GIA as given to others, including juniors and further benefit of regularization from 01.04.2018 in terms of the mandate of this Court in Yashwant Singh (supra), against which the SLP stands dismissed and the aforesaid judgment stands implemented and the based on the judgment in case of Yashwant Singh (supra) accruable benefits have been extended to many others, including the juniors as Lecturer (Chemistry) and even to Lecturers in other subjects including Parveen Kumar (supra), and therefore, the petitioner deserves parity and equal treatment and also to avoid the charge of discrimination to petitioner vis-à-vis his counterparts and juniors with all accruable service benefits. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS 8. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition is allowed, in following terms :- (i) Action of State Authorities in denying reengagement as Lecturer (Chemistry) w.e.f. 21.09.2007 with continuity in service, despite the orders passed by SDM and Director on 9.9.2013 and 21.10.2013 {Annexure A-1} and orders dated 11.04.2018 passed in instant proceedings, is arbitrary and is quashed and set-aside; (ii) State Authorities shall reengage the petitioner as Lecturer (Chemistry), on PTA-GIA, in GSSS Dasehra, District Mandi or in any school {either on deemed or on notional basis} ; and (iii) Upon reengagement as in (ii) above; State Authorities shall grant benefit of continuity in service with past seniority w.e.f. 21.09.2007 and the admissible salary under Grant-in-Aid to PTA’s ; and thereafter contractual status on completion of 7 years of service and regularization as Lecturer (Chemistry) w.e.f. 01.04.2018 in terms of the judgment in Yashwant Singh {CWP No 342 of 2021} ; from the date these benefits have been extended to many other similarly placed incumbents(s) and juniors, including Parveen Kumar [CWP No. 5491 / 2023 and Ashwani Kumar [CWP No. 7525 /2022] with all consequential benefits ; and ; (iv). State Authorities shall release all consequential benefits including actual monetary benefits for a period of three years prior to filing of instant petition [OA No 1400/2018, converted as CWPOA No 4078/2020] in terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ; Shiv Dass vs Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin vs Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , and Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [2022 SCC Online SC 641] decided on 18.5.2022; within six weeks from today ; (v) Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.