ORDER :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner was initially engaged on 31 March, 2001 on contract basis in the respondent-Corporation, as is evident from the appointment letter (Annexure P-4). Pursuant to aforesaid appointment, petitioner gave his joining as Clerk on 31.3.2001, as is evident from joining report (Annexure P-5). Pleadings adduced on record by the parties to the lis clearly reveals that aforesaid contract of the petitioner came to be renewed periodically. The copies of the renewal of contract are attached collectively as Annexure P-6 with the petition. While petitioner was rendering his services as Clerk on contract basis, respondent-State repeatedly promulgated policy for regularization of contract employees in the Government Department. Though, petitioner, who had been rendering services of Clerk continuously since his appointment on 31.3.2001 had become eligible for regularization in terms of the policy dated 29.8.2009 framed by the State Government, but fact remains that his case was not considered for regularization. Again in the year 2009 and 2021 Government of Himachal Pradesh took policy decision (Annexures P-7 and P-8) for regularization of contract employees working in various departments of the Government, but yet respondent No. 3 failed to regularize the services of the petitioner and as such, he was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following reliefs:-

"1. Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued be direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as clerks in terms of the policy of the State Government conveyed through on his completing six years of service on contract basis i.e. with effect from 31.3.2001 along with all consequential benefits, viz, fixation of pay, seniority etc.

2. Respondent may further be directed the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date petitioner completed six years of service including the pay scales of regular clerks from 19.2.2008 and 21.2.2010, respectively along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum."

2. Aforesaid claim of the petitioner for regularization from due date has been rejected by the respondents, especially respondent No. 3 on the ground that since petitioner was initially engaged on 31.3.2001 without fulfilling the essential qualifications and also without following due process of selection and procedure prescribed, he could not be considered for regularization in terms of the policy framed by State of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of contract employees. It has been further averred in the reply filed by respondent No. 2 that now since petitioner has acquired essential qualification, he has been appointed as Clerk on 23.6.2012 and pursuant to his fresh appointment he has joined the services without registering any protest and as such, present petition deserves dismissal without any merit.

3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute inter se parties that respondent No. 2, H.P. Ex-Servicemen Corporation, which is Government of Himachal Pradesh undertaking and is covered by the Government instructions issued from time to time, especially Annexures P-7 and P-8, is bound to follow the instructions and policies framed by the Government from time to time and as such, should have regularized the services of the petitioner as Clerk on 31.3.2001. It is not in dispute that there are eighteen posts of Clerks on regular basis and 18 posts of Clerks on contract basis with the H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation. Out of the aforesaid 18 posts of clerks, only seven posts have been filled up on regular basis in terms of policy of regularization framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. As per the instructions issued by the F.C-cum- Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 19.4.2002 and 20.01.20