JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for rendering direction to the respondents to consider his case by change of designation for appointment as clerk with retrospective effect from the date he was rendering/performing duties in the aforesaid capacity in the respondent department. The petitioner was regularized against the post of conductor by the respondent-Corporation on 8.1.1983. However, under office memo No.EO 98- 1084/87 (O), the petitioner was directed to be placed in the Regional Office, Rampur for the purpose of discharging the duties of a clerk/typist as he was found efficient as a typist. The protracted correspondence at the instance of the petitioner having been taken up with the respondent-corporation and the recommendation sent by the Regional Manager, HRTC Rampur Bushahar to the Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla under letter No. HRTC-(RMP)-1-1-Estt.(207) 189-90-9206 for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization against the post of clerk/typist, proved abortive as no provision exists under the R & P Rules of the respondent-Corporation for vindicating the claim of the petitioner. Even a representation in the year 2001 by the petitioner to the Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla containing therein the grievances para-materia to the grievances earlier ventilated by the petitioner, bore no fruitful results. Lastly, on 21.4.2008, the respondent-Corporation issued a Work Order directing the petitioner to join duties at Regional Office, Recongpeo and perform the duties of typist. 2. Even the respondents in the reply have not controverted the factum of the petitioner not being asked to perform the duties of a Clerk/Typist. Rather, they vindicate their office orders wherein the petitioner was directed to perform the duties of Clerk/Typist on the score that a discretion vested in them to take work of any nature from any employee. The contended relief of the petitioner for appointment as Clerk or Typist by change of designation is contended to be not available to be afforded to the petitioner in the face of nonexistence of any apposite provision in the R & P Rules. However, the imminent fact which emerges from the reply of the respondents is of their being no repudiation or denial by the respondents to the factum of the petitioner having as averred by him in the writ petition work rendered or performed the duties of Clerk or Typist even though he was regularized as a Conductor. However, the imminent fact which emerges from the reply of the respondents is of their being no repudiation or denial by the respondents to the factum of the petitioner having as averred by him in the writ petition work rendered or performed the duties of Clerk or Typist even though he was regularized as a Conductor. Consequently, when the respondents acquiesce to the said averment in the writ petition, obviously then the respondents are required to be not only defraying wages to the petitioner in tandem with the nature of work and duties performed by him, besides even if no provision exists in the R & P Rules qua change of designation, nonetheless, even in absence thereof the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner especially when given the protracted period for which he is performing the duties of Clerk/Typist under them, for his appointment in the capacity, aforesaid by change of designation. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed the respondents are directed to defray to the petitioner wages equivalent to the one drawn by Clerk/Typist from the date he was rendering the duties in the said capacity under the respondents. Also the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Clerk/Typist by change of designation. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.