CWP(T) No. 5249/2008 alongwith CWP(T) Nos. 5234, 5237, 5241, 5242, 5243, 5244, 5246, 5248, 5250, 5251, 5257, 5259, 5263, 5267, 5928, 7753 and CWPOA No. 5245 of 2008. 19.05.2010 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. The Chart indicating the numbers of O.A., renumbered CWP(T) and name of each of the petitioners is as under: No. of O.A. Re- numbered CWP(T) Name of Petition 909/2001 5249/2008 Amar Lal A Dharam Parkash vs. State 462/2001 5234/2008 Amar Lal A Naresh Kumar vs. State 1102/2001 5237/2008 Amar Lal A Yugal Kishore vs. State 1186/2001 5241/2008 Amar Lal A Rosy Mathew vs. State 469/2001 5242/2008 Amar Lal A Chander Kanta vs. State 490/2001 5243/2008 Amar Lal A Surinder Singh vs. State 1169/2001 5244/2008 Amar Lal A Partap Singh vs. State 1218/2001 5245/2008 Amar Lal A Mahender Kumar vs. State 461/2001 5246/2008 Amar Lal A Poonam Rani vs. State 940/2001 5248/2008 Amar Lal A Om Parkash vs. State 1267/2001 5250/2008 Amar Lal A Jai Kumar vs. State 994/2001 5251/2008 Amar Lal A Chaman Lal Sharma vs. State 1332/2001 5257/2008 Amar Lal A Rajinder Thakur vs. State 467/2001 5259/2008 Amar Lal A Chaina Ram vs. State 1201/2001 5263/2008 Amar Lal A Devender Kumar vs. State 5267/2001 5267/2008 Amar Lal A Sanjay Chauhan vs. State 1202/2001 5928/2008 Amar Lal A Hem Raj vs. State 1187/2001 7753/2008 Amar Lal A Ram Singh Thakur vs. State 2. According to the learned counsel for the parties the present matters are squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5253/2008, titled as Narain Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein the earlier decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293, has been considered and relied upon. 3. A copy of the judgment dated 21.4.2010 passed in Narain Singh (supra) is taken on record. 4. In Narain Singh (supra), the following directions were issued: “Accordingly, in view of the observations, made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The termination of the petitioner dated 22.05.2000 is declared illegal being violative of the principle of “last come first go”. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization as lecturer (School Cadre) by taking into consideration his initial engagement w.e.f. 23.09.1998. The period of break in service between 22.05.2000 to 22.09.2001 is condoned. This period shall be counted for all intents and purposes, including seniority. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs.” ` 5. Except for the difference in the dates there is no difference in the facts of each of the petitioners with that of Narain Singh (supra). There is no dispute with regard to the dates of engagement, illegal termination and re-engagement of each of the petitioners. Thus, the directions issued in Narain Singh (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to each of the petitioners by taking into account their respective dates of initial engagement, dis- engagement and the re-engagement. Directions be complied with within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications. ` ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 19, 2010 (rana)