JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through, the, extant writ petition, the writ petitioner, claims, benefit of conferment, of, status, of, regularization, against the post, Clerk, Class-III employee, upon, him, imperatively, upon his completing, hence, within the ambit, of, the relevant policy, rather 8 years of continuous daily wage service thereagainst. 2. Since, the afore endeavour of the petitioner, becomes, averred in the petition, to, beget failure, despite repeated requests being made upon the respondents, hence, through the extant petition, he seeks issuance, of, an apposite writ, of, mandamus, upon, the respondents. 3. However, the respondents seriously contest(s), the afore strivings, of, a mandamus, being made upon them, and, the afore contest is hinged, upon, the factum of the petitioner, being not, on the muster rolls, of, the government, nor his drawing money from the government treasury, rather earlier his drawing moneys/remunerations, from, the amalgamated funds, and latter on the suggestion of the audit team, of the Accountant General Office, H.P., Shimla, his per mensem salary is being paid from the local PTA fund, hence, the petitioner is contended to be not covered under the policy of regularization, as, framed by the Government from time to time. 4. Since, the amalgamated funds become deposited, in, the government treasury, (ii) and, thereafter payments are rather being made to the petitioner by the Principal, and, when the afore fact has not come under any serious contest, being made thereto, by the respondents, through, theirs seeking time, to, file either a supplementary explicatory affidavit, or, strivings being made to cast further pleadings, (iii) thereupon, with emanations, of, remunerations, as made, to the petitioner, rather occurring from the government treasury, (iv) whereupon(s) dehors theirs being a part of amalgamated funds, even if collected from students, alike tuition fee(s), obviously as resource generating mechanism(s), for, meteings expenditure entailed, upon, institution(s) running the college, yet hence, all the remuneration(s), as, generate from the government treasury, and, as become disbursed by the Principal, to, the writ petitioner, obviously don the trait, and, characteristics, of, remittance of government money(ies), or releases, thereof towards, remunerations or wages, to, the writ petitioner. 5. 5. However, at this stage, the learned Additional Advocate General, makes a vehement address, before this Court that since a contention has been raised in the reply, on affidavit furnished to the writ petition that, upon, an audit objection reared by the Audit team of the Accountant General's Office H.P., Shimla, with respect to the liquidation of per mensem wages, to the writ petitioner hence from the amalgamated funds of the college concerned, and rather theirs suggesting vis-a-vis, the per mensem salary of the writ petitioner, being defrayable out of the local PTA funds, hence, nowat, the petitioner's per mensem salary is being paid from the local PTA funds. Consequently, he submits that since the per mensem salary of the writ petitioner, is being paid, from the local PTA funds, and, since the afore funds are not part of the government treasury, hence, the writ petitioner cannot be deemed to be on a daily wage service, under the respondents, nor he is entitled to the benefit of regularization under the schemes or policies formulated by the Government. However, the afore averment, even on affidavit, as raised, in the reply furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent is not supported by any observations, to the afore apposite fact, existing in the audit report, prepared by the audit team, of the Accountant General's Office, H. P. Shimla, who visited, the institution concerned. Consequently, it appears that, dehors any observations purportedly made by the audit team of the Accountant General Office, H.P., Shimla, yet the respondents untenably strive to deprive the writ petitioner hence of the benefit(s) of his hitherto daily wage service, under the respondents, with the concomitant effect of theirs also striving, to, deprive him to claim regularization in service, given with theirs proceeding to defray to him per mensem wages, from the local PTA funds, though, earlier defrayed from the amalgamated funds. Since, the afore has caused prejudice to the rights of the writ petitioner, hence, the afore maneuvering(s) as adopted by the respondents, is uncalled for, and, is discountenanced. 5. In aftermath, the espousal of the petitioner, is, merit worthy, and, if within the ambit of the apposite policy, the petitioner has completed the requisite period of service, under the respondents, thereupon, the respondents are directed, to, make an order of regularization in service, of, the petitioner, against the apposite substantive post, along with all incidental thereto benefits. 5. In aftermath, the espousal of the petitioner, is, merit worthy, and, if within the ambit of the apposite policy, the petitioner has completed the requisite period of service, under the respondents, thereupon, the respondents are directed, to, make an order of regularization in service, of, the petitioner, against the apposite substantive post, along with all incidental thereto benefits. The writ petition is allowed, and, all the pending applications also stand disposed of.