( 2026:HHC:25113 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.647 of 2026 Decided on: 24th June, 2026 Rajinder Singh Randhawa and others ...Petitioners versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate. For respondents No.1&2: Mr.Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.3: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive relief(s); “a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the services of the petitioners in 95% Grant in Aid College before being taken over for the purpose of Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Pension and other retiral benefits. b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners interest @ 12% on the Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Pension wrongly withheld by them from the date the same became due to the petitioners.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) 2. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the petitioners were earlier appointed as Lecturers, (now Assistant Professors) in Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College (in short GGDSDC), Baijnath, District Kangra (HP), since 1983 onwards. The college was in receipt of 95% Grant-in-Aid by the respondent-State and affiliated with respondent No.3-University. All the petitioners were selected in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules framed by respondent No.3-University and possessed the requisite qualifications to hold the post and their appointments were approved by respondent No.3. 3. Respondent-State, as per the Notification dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure P-1) had taken over the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 04.01.2007, when GGDSDC, Baijnath was taken over as per the terms and conditions for taking over of staff of private colleges, notified vide Notification No.Cha(15)3/86-Shiksha-K: dated 25.08.1994. 4. It is relevant to mention here that with a view to provide security of services to the employees of the aided colleges in the State of HP, an Act called “the Himachal Pradesh Aided Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1994”, (in short Act) was enacted. Further, the employees working in the aided colleges were to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years. As per the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973, (in short Ordinances), a teacher who completes 60 years in the mid-academic session, was allowed to continue in service till the end of the semester or the academic session. The services of the petitioners were governed under the Grant-in-Aid Rules and the rules and 3 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) regulations framed by respondent No.3. As per Rule 12(A) contained in Chapter XXXVIII Paragraph 38.5 B(d) of the Ordinances of respondent No.3-University, in addition to the benefits of Provident Fund, the Government Body of the college shall grant to every teacher, at the time of retirement or death, whichever is earlier, for efficient and faithful service rendered, a gratuity of a sum calculated at a rate of 6 months’ pay last drawn for each complete year of service. As per the Notification dated 25.08.1994, the services of only qualified teachers and non-teaching staff, who fulfill the prescribed departmental Recruitment and Promotion rule conditions will be taken over and, the Government scales in respect of their respective categories shall be permissible to them and further they will be treated as fresh entrants and placed at the bottom of the seniority list maintained in the Government employees in their respective cadre from the date of taking over. 5. The petitioners after taking over their services, who were to retire at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years, as provided under the Ordinances of respondent No.3-University, made representations to count entire service rendered by them from initial date of appointment in the affiliated college in corresponding cadres for all intents and purposes i.e. seniority, promotion, gratuity, leave encashment, pension and all other benefits including retiral benefits. However, when no decision was taken by the respondent-State, the petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court. They based their claim on the earlier judgment passed by the Court in CWP (T) No.7821 of 2008, titled, Prem Lata Thapar vs. 4 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) State of HP & others., wherein, the Court after considering condition Nos.7 and 9 of the Notification dated 25.08.1994, came to the conclusion that the staff taken over by the Government was entitled to the Government pay scales, which they had been getting at the time of take over and further the staff taken over was to be treated as fresh entrants, only for the purpose of seniority and not for the purpose of pay scale or pay. 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioners bearing CWP No. 7175 of 2010, titled, R.S. Randhwa and Ors. vs. State of HP and Ors. and connected petitions, were disposed of by a common judgment on 27.11.2012 in terms of the judgment passed in Prem Lata Thapar’s case (supra) holding that the petitioners in the writ petitions, being similarly situate were also entitled to the same treatment without any discrimination, keeping in view, their respective status as members of the teaching faculty/ministerial staff and benefit of the said judgment was also directed to be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment before the respondent/competent authority. 7. After the decision by this Court, the respondents did not comply with the judgment in letter and spirit and the petitioners filed Execution Petition No. 36 of 2023, titled, R.S.Randhawa and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another along-with connected matters. The Execution Petition was closed as per order dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the petitioners filed Review Petition 5 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) No.84/2024, titled, Rajinder Singh Randhwa & Anr. vs. State of HP & Anr., which was dismissed on 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-10). The petitioners thereafter filed the Letters Patent Appeals against the order dated 15.05.2024, passed in the Execution Petitions, however, the same were dismissed as withdrawn on 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-12) with liberty to file fresh petitions within a period of six to eight weeks. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 8. The petitioners have averred in the petition that the respondent-State had enacted the Act to provide Security of Services to the Employees of affiliated colleges in the State of H.P. and the petitioners, whose services were taken over, were to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years, whereas they have been retired after 58 years, which had put them in financial loss. The services rendered by them before taking over their services cannot be ignored since they had given their youth to nurture the college, which college was taken over by the respondent-State. A teacher in an Aided College is holding the post akin to the post held by a teacher in the Government College and the purpose of providing the Grant-in-Aid to the College is only to grant the teachers all the service benefits including pension, provident fund and gratuity. The action on the part of the respondent-State refusing to count the period of service rendered by the petitioners before taking over their services in paying gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits, is bad, arbitrary and discriminatory. The action on the part of the respondent-State to pay the gratuity and leave encashment only of the 6 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) period of service rendered by the petitioners after taking over their services and college w.e.f. 04.01.2007, is contrary to law. Though a teacher in Aided college may not be holding a post under the State Government, but he is entitled at least to the monetary benefits of pay and allowances while in service and pension and other benefits on retirement and thus, the petitioners sought direction to count the services rendered by them before taking over their services rendered in the Aided college for all service benefits as granted to a teacher appointed in the State Government. 9. The respondent-State filed reply to the petition and averred that no injustice has been caused to the petitioners inasmuch as no cause of action is accrued in their favour. The Government had framed the terms and conditions for taking over privately managed colleges in the State (affiliated including teaching and non-teaching staff vide Notification dated 25.08.1994) and as per the clause 7 thereof, the services of only qualified teaching and non-teaching staff appointed one year earlier, who fulfil, prescribed departmental Recruitment and Promotion rule conditions, prevalent at the time of taking over will be considered for taking over subject to the approval of the State Public Service Commission or Departmental Screening Committee from the date of taking over. Further, as per Clause 9 of the Notification, all the members of the staff will be treated as fresh entrants and they will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list maintained in respect of Government employees in their respective cadre from the date of taking over. It has further been averred 7 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) that once the petitioners have joined their duties and accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment and also submitted affidavits agreeing to the terms and conditions of the taking over, as per Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, acceptance cannot be partial, conditional, or subject to modification. Therefore, the claim raised by the petitioners is not fit in the eyes of law. It is further averred that a college was also notified and made functional in the year 2006, vide Government Notification dated 04.08.2006. Subsequently, the Government has taken over privately managed GGDSD College, Baijnath, vide Notification dated 08.02.2007. Since both colleges were being run parallel at Baijnath and the petitioners were keen to be absorbed their services under Government Sector in view of the possibility of less involvement in the college, their services have been taken over. 10. It has also been averred on merits that there are no justifiable and valid ground available to the petitioners to file and maintain the present petition against the respondents. As per the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994, the teaching and non-teaching employees, who were getting GIA were to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years, because no retirement age was mentioned in GIA Rules, 2008. The management of 95% Aided colleges is continuing the services of the employee even after the age of 60 years till the academic session and claiming the GIA benefit alongwith interest from the Government by filing the writ petitions, which is not admissible under the said provisions. As per the Section 6 of the 1994 Act, the Government 8 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) may from time to time specify the pay scales implying discretionary powers subject to financial and policy considerations. It has further been averred that in compliance with the decision passed in CWP(T) No. 7821 of 2008, pay scale of the petitioners were re-fixed by the respondents- State at the time of taking over the colleges and due and admissible benefits have been granted to them. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 12. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners, who were working as Lecturers in the GGDSD College, Baijnath were in receipt of 95% Grant-in-Aid from the respondent-State. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were fulfilling the qualifications to hold the posts of Lecturers. As per Notification dated 08.02.2007, the services of the petitioners are to be governed in terms and conditions of taking over of staff of private college notified vide Notification dated 25.08.1994. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Prem Lata Thapar’s case (supra) had considered the import of condition Nos. 7 and 9 and held that the staff of taken over college is entitled to government pay scales, which such staff had been getting at the time of take over and further, the staff is to be treated as fresh entrant, only for the purpose of seniority and not for the purpose of pay scale. This judgment was assailed by the respondent-State by preferring the Letters Patent Appeal, which came to be dismissed on 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-6). As per the judgment passed by the Court, the respondent-State had fixed the pay of the petitioner in the said petition at 9 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) the time of taking over of the college in the selection scale and further the benefit of revision of pay scale, which had taken place to the subsequent to the taking over the college and her services, was also granted. 13. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners had claimed that that the issue raised by them is covered by the judgment in Prem Lata Thapar’s case and this Court had given the directions to grant the similar benefits to the petitioners clearly noticing that they are also similarly situate. After the decision given by this Court, the respondent- State had only protected the pay scale of the petitioners, which they were drawing before taking over their services and further given the benefit of the service rendered by them after taking over of their services to grant the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment. They have not been granted the benefit of counting of the past services rendered by them in the erstwhile GGDSD College, Baijnath. Once the petitioners had served the erstwhile GGDSD College, which was in receipt of 95% Grant-in-Aid and were fulfilling the requisite qualifications to hold the posts as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, framed by the respondent-State, even when their services were taken over pursuant to Notification dated 08.02.2007, in terms of the guidelines and conditions contained in the earlier Notification dated 25.08.1994 issued by the respondent-State, they cannot be denied the benefit of their past services for the purpose of retiral benefits. 14. The petitioners were granted the same pay scales as were granted to the teachers appointed in Government Colleges and GGDSDC, 10 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) Baijnath was affiliated with respondent No.3-University. The petitioners were discharging the same duties and functions as discharged by the teachers appointed in Government colleges. Furthermore, GGDSDC Baijnath was functioning earlier to the college established by the State Government and the petitioners were imparting the education to the students which otherwise was the function to be performed by the State Government. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that as per Rule 7 contained in Chapter XXXVIII Para 38.5 B(d) Appendix ‘A’ of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973, relating to the teachers of non-Government Affiliated Colleges, provides that an affiliating non- Government College or institution shall adopt the same pay scale for teachers as notified from time to time for the teachers in Government Colleges. Since in the present case, the services of the petitioners were protected by engrafting the Ordinances by respondent No.1-University and further, GGDSDC Baijnath was getting 95% Grant-in-Aid, to meet the expenses, the petitioners have to be treated equally like a Lecturer serving in Govt. Service and thus, entitled to all retiral benefits considering the service rendered in GGDSDC Baijnath such as gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc. 15. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Court in CWP No.6807 of 2014, titled, Jamila Khan versus State of H.P. & others, had held that the teachers and non-teaching staff of Government aided colleges/schools are to be treated at par with teachers and non-teaching staff of the Government colleges/schools and gave directions to release 11 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) the gratuity in favour of the petitioner. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:- “3. The Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh has enacted the Act to provide for the security of services to the employees of the aided Colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh known as The Himachal Pradesh Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Employees) Act, 1994 (in short “the Act”). Section 2(a) of the Act defines the “aided College” or “College” to mean College affiliated to and admitted to the privileges of a University and receiving financial assistance not less than fifty per centum of the salary component for both teaching and non-teaching staff from the State Government. Section 3 of the Act lays down the minimum qualifications for recruitment of various classes of the employees of a College. The method of recruitment is provided under Section 4 of the Act. Section 6 provides that the scales of pay and other allowances and privileges of the employees of a College shall be such as may, from time to time, as specified by the State Government. Section 13 lays down the procedure for payment of salaries. Section 21 empowers the State Government to frame rules by way of notification. The State Government has also notified on 16.3.2008, The Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-aid Rules, 2008. The object of the grant, as per Rule 3, is to financially assist non-Government Colleges teaching in Arts, Commerce and Science subjects at under Graduate levels, till they become self- reliant. According to Rule 4, grant-in-aid is admissible for meeting, a part of the salary expenses, in respect of approved staff (teaching & non- teaching). However, grant-in-aid to a College should not exceed 50% of the revenue gap (total expenditure on salary of approved teaching and non-teaching staff minus the total income from all sources). The actual amount of grant-in-aid is dependent upon the availability of resources and budgetary allocation with the Government for this purpose. Rule 5 lays down the eligibility criteria. Rule 7 provides for equitable distribution in case of insufficiency of funds. Rule 13 lays down that where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may relax any of the provisions of these rules. By way of amendment 12 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) notified on 6.10.2009, after first proviso, the following proviso was inserted in Rule 4: “Provided further that colleges which were getting Grant-in-aid under the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-aid Rules, 1994 shall be provided Grant-in-Aid only for those teaching and non-teaching staff for whom Grant-in-aid was being provided prior to notification of Himachal Pradesh Grant-in- Aid to non-Government Colleges Rules, 2008 and the amount of annual Grant-in-aid to these colleges shall be restricted up to the amount of annual Grant-in aid provided against each of these teaching and non-teaching staff in these colleges prior to 31.3.2008. On accrual of any incremental and other benefits after 31.3.2008, no additional Grant-in-aid shall be provided to these colleges. Further, the Grant-in-aid shall be reduced as and when the staff gets retired. “Provided further that the Grant-in-aid shall be provided w.e.f. 1.4.2008”. 4. The respondent No. 2 though is duly served, however, there is no representation on its behalf. The stand of the respondent-State as per the reply is that the petitioner’s husband was not a government servant. His case was not covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The employees of 95% aided institutions would not fall within the category of the Government. It is also averred in the reply that the role of the State is confined to release financial assistance in the form of GIA only towards part of salary component as provided in the GIA Rules. It is also averred that the gratuity and leave encashment applicable to the petitioner and other employees of non-Government affiliated colleges whether aided or non-aided is to be released as per the 1st Ordinance of 1973 Appendix-“A” Chapter XXXVIII para 38.5B(d). 5. Appendix “A” of 1st Ordinance, 1973 talks of teachers and not the non-teaching staff. The petitioner’s husband has served respondent No. 2-College for almost 35 years as Mali. The petitioner has been informed of the entitlement towards leave encashment and gratuity. However, the fact of the matter is that till date, neither gratuity nor leave encashment 13 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) has been released in favour of the husband of the petitioner. The Himachal Pradesh Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Employees) Act, 1994, only lays down as per Section 6 that the scales of pay and other allowances and privileges of the employees of a College shall be such as may from time to time, be specified by the State Government. It is not clear from the language employed in Section 6 of the Act that whether the gratuity was intended to be included herein or not. 6 to 15. xx xx xx 16. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti and Another vs. Moti Chand Jain and Others reported in 2009-II-LLJ 616 (Raj), has held that nongovernmental educational institutions were bound to pay gratuity to its employees. It has been held as under: “[2] All these appeals arise from a common order of learned Single judge whereby, the appellant Samiti was directed to make payment of gratuity to the respondents along with interest. The order does not call for interference in view of the ratio indicated in Children Garden Play School Education Society v. Raj Nan Government Educational Institutions Tribunal and Ors.,2008 3 WLC(Raj) 147 wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that non-government educational institutions are bouna to pay gratuity to the employees worked with them since gratuity is a benefit arising from past service and meant for relief and assistance after retirement or cessation of employment.” 17. The employees of respondent No. 2-College are also doing yeomen’s service in educational field. The conditions for the service of teaching and non-teaching staff must be humane and the endeavour should be made by the State Government that the teachers and non- teaching staff of Government Aided Colleges/Schools are treated at par with teachers and non-teaching staff of Government Colleges/Schools. The teachers in private Aided Colleges are appointed as per the Ordinance framed by the University and they are also supposed to fulfill the minimum educational qualification criteria, as laid down under the UGC norms. The 14 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) petitioner’s husband was also entitled to leave encashment. The expression salary in the grant-in-aid clause would also cover leave encashment. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2- College is directed to release the gratuity to the petitioner, strictly as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within ten weeks from today. The respondent No. 1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,811/- to the petitioner towards leave encashment, if necessary by relaxing the Rules under Rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-aid Rules, 2008 within six weeks. It is made clear that the amount paid towards the leave encashment can be adjusted by the respondent No. 1-State while releasing grant-in-aid to respondent No. 2- College. The respondent-State is also directed to consider making comprehensive rules/ guidelines for the retiral benefits of the Government aided Colleges/Institutions.” 16. A coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6995 of 2024, titled, Shramja Munjal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., along-with connected matter, had occasion to consider the issue in respect of grant of gratuity to the employees, who were working in the Government Aided Colleges when the limit from Rs.10,00,000/- lakhs to Rs.20,00,000/- lakhs was increased and the Court held that the respondent- State is bound to enhance the limit to Rs. 20 lakhs. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision passed in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tahsil and District Wardha and Others, (2025) 10 SCC 248, has held that a teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. The posts in the aided Schools are either sanctioned by the Government or 15 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) approved in accordance with the Rules. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund, gratuity, as applicable. Though strictly speaking, the teacher may not be holding a post under the State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government, atleast in the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in service, as also pension and other benefits on a retirement. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “7. On the question of the teacher’s entitlement to the provisions of the Gratuity Act, it has to be held that the decision in Birla Institute of Technology puts to rest any such controversy. The question here would be not so much the entitlement to gratuity but as to whether the legal heirs of a deceased teacher in an aided school would be entitled to gratuity under the 1972 Act or under the 1982 Rules. The argument of the State is that an aided school employee, including a teacher would be exempted from the definition of an employee under the Act. Per contra it is argued that the exemption is only to a person who holds a post under the Central Government or State Government. An aided school teacher does not hold a post under the State Government, contends the appellant. 8. It must be observed that a teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. Pertinent is the fact that the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though 16 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) strictly speaking the teachers may not be holding a post under the State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government, at least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement. 9. We have to also notice that sub-section (5) makes Section 4 inapplicable, if the employees have a right to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with an employer. When comparing the benefits, the question is not to be considered in isolation with respect to an employee and whether he or she would be entitled to higher amounts under the Act or under the Rules. The scheme has to be considered in toto for the purpose of determining as to which is more beneficial. The 1972 Act prescribes under Section 4(2) gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages based on the last wages drawn for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. Insofar as the 1982 Rules is concerned, gratuity is payable equal to ¼th of last pay drawn of each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 and a half years.” 18. A perusal of the aforementioned paras of the judgment clearly reveals that the teachers in the aided school may not be holding a post under the State Government, but it is akin to a post under the State Government, at least entitled for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in service, as also pension and other benefits after retirement. 19. Now if the facts of the present case are adverted to, the petitioners were possessing the same and similar qualifications as possessed by the teachers working in the Government colleges. They were eligible to be appointed as teachers in the Government colleges. They were 17 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) discharging and performing the same and similar duties as performed by the teachers working in the Government colleges. They were granted the same and similar pay scales from time to time as granted to the teachers in the Government colleges. The college where the petitioners were discharging their duties was in receipt of 95% Grant-in-Aid by the respondent-State. The college was affiliated with respondent No.3- University and the services of the petitioners were approved by respondent No.3-University. Thus, the services rendered by the petitioners before taking over their services in GGDSDC Baijnath have to be counted for all service benefits. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently argued that since the services of the petitioners have been taken over in terms and conditions laid down in the Notification dated 25.08.1994, which has been specifically mentioned in the Notification dated 08.02.2007, the petitioners are not entitled to count their past services for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the respondent-State is only bound to pay them the salary after taking over their services. The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent-State was releasing 95% Grant-in-aid to the petitioners, who were possessing the qualifications to hold the posts of teachers and only on the basis of their eligibility, their services had been taken over by the respondent-State. If the terms and conditions postulated in the Notification dated 25.08.1994 are perused, it only talks about the fact that the staff recruited will be treated 18 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) as fresh entrants and they will be placed at bottom of the seniority list. The terms and conditions of the Notification do not postulate that the past services rendered by the petitioners will not be counted for the purpose of defraying the pensionary benefits. The main purpose of enacting condition No.9 in the Notification was that by virtue of taking over their services, the persons who are already serving with the respondent-State are not affected and due to that reason, it was mentioned that they will be placed at the bottom of the seniority. By not specifically mentioning that the past services rendered by the petitioners shall not be counted for the purpose of pension and other service benefits, it cannot be construed that the services rendered by them prior to taking over their services, would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of pension and other retiral benefits. 21. It is not in dispute that the teachers, who are working with the respondent-State in Government colleges are in receipt of pension. Had the respondent-State not granting the pension to its employees, the said benefit could have been denied to the petitioners. Once the respondent- State has been releasing the pension to its employees, where the petitioners had also served after taking over their services, they cannot be treated unequally more particularly when they had performed and discharged the same duties. 22. Once the petitioners have given their youth to nurture the students in GGDSDC Baijnath, which was in receipt of 95% Grant-in-Aid, 19 ( 2026:HHC:25113 ) where the petitioners were working before taking over their services and possessing the qualification to hold the posts and their appointment was approved by respondent No.3-University with whom the college was affiliated, the action on the part of the respondent-State not to count their past services rendered before taking over their services vide Notification dated 08.02.2007 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It also offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, since the entire services of a teacher in Government colleges are being considered for grant of pensionary benefits. 23. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to count the entire services of the petitioners from the initial date of their appointments in GGDSDC Baijnath for the purpose of granting them retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc. In case the retiral benefits are not released in favour of the petitioners within three months from today, the respondent-State shall pay interest on the arrears at the rate of 6% per annum from today till actual payment to them. 24. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 24th June, 2026 Judge (Ritu)