JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.5.2015, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 5911 of 2014 titled Rakesh Rana vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment” for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The petitioner, in the writ petitioner had sought following reliefs: (i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing order dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure P-9), since the same has been passed without taking into consideration the fact that petitioner w.e.f. 13.7.2005 till date is serving the office of respondent No.2 as a driver and w.e.f. 1.2.2010, respondent No. 2 is paying the salary of the petitioner from State head. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner in view of regularization policy of contractual employees (Annexure P-5), since the petitioner has completed his 9 years service as driver on contract basis and as per the regularization policy, the employees who have completed 6 years service are entitled for regularization.” 3. The respondents resisted the writ petition. 4. The Writ Court, without marshalling the facts and merits of the case, directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of five years. 5. The moot question is to which relief, the petitioner is entitled to. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as driver on 29.6.2005 by the Principal, Panchayati Raj, Training Institute, Mashobra (Craigneno), Shimla on contract basis and his pay was to be drawn from the recurring grant. Thereafter he came to be transferred on 1.2.2010 vide Annexure P3 to the Directorate of Panchayati Raj and appointed as driver right from 1.2.2010 in the said department. The Director-cum-Special Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department H.P. Shimla issued office order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P4) whereby he came to be appointed as driver on contract basis and he has received the pay as a contract driver right from 26.2.2010. It is admitted that he is still holding the post. In terms of the policy dated 7th May, 2015, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized after five years service. It is admitted that he is still holding the post. In terms of the policy dated 7th May, 2015, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized after five years service. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of policy dated 7th May, 2015 herein: “In continuation of this Department letter number Per (AP)-C-B (2)-3/2012 dated 28th June, 2014, I am directed to say that the matter regarding regularization of services of contractual employees working in various Departments was under consideration of the Government for some time past. Now, it has been decided by the Government to regularize the services of the contractual appointees after completion of five years service as on 31.3.2015, provided that they have been engaged, as such, after observing all codal formalities.” 7. Worst come worst, the petitioner is entitled to regularization after completion of five years w.e.f. 26.2.2010. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the policy dated 7th May, 2015, quoted supra, w.e.f. 26.2.2015, with all consequential benefits. 9. Accordingly, the LPA is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any and the impugned judgment is modified as indicated hereinabove.