JUDGMENT : By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the impugned order dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent may kindly be set aside and quashed being wrong, arbitrary, illegal, inapplicable, discriminatory, void abinitio and violative of the judgment dated 08.02.2019 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 16158- 16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc., by issuing writ of Certiorari. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 10.04.2007, strictly in accordance with the judgment dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) with all consequential service benefits. (iii) That the respondent may further be directed to pay arrears of salary alongwith interest @ 9% per annum flowing out of regularization of the petitioner as conductor w.e.f. 10.04.2007, by issuing writ of mandamus. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in harness on 25.10.2000, while in the service of the respondent- Corporation. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. After attaining the age of majority, he applied for employment assistance in accordance with kith and kin policy framed by the Corporation. The petitioner was engaged on contract basis vide office order dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P-1). His services were subsequently regularized vide office order dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-2), upon completion of six years contractual service. His contention is that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158-16165 of 2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc., he is entitled for the regularization of his service from the initial date of his appointment. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4690 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2020, with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra). The case of the petitioner stood rejected by the authority concerned vide office order dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) by assigning the following reasons:- And whereas the State Government introduced the contractual policy vide notification dated 12.12.203 accordingly amendments in the R&P Rules were made by the respondent-Corporation vide notification dated 03.09.2006, whereas petitioner applied for appointment under kith and kin policy on 05.02.2007 after attaining the age of majority. Accordingly, his case was screened by the Screening Committee in accordance with the policy in existence at that relevant time and he was engaged on contract basis w.e.f. 10.04.2007 and regularized w.e.f. 21.07.2014 after completion of seven years contractual policy in pursuance to the State Government instructions. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Court of HP in CWP No. 9094 of 2013, titled as Surinder Kumar with connected matter versus State of HP and others which was decided on 06.10.2015, has categorized that in the case of minor, the right to apply would commence from the date he/she attained majority, as given in the scheme and his/her application would be considered as per the policy/scheme which was in vogue at the time of presenting the application. In the matter where the Court or the Tribunal has directed the authority to consider the case of the applicant afresh, the claim of the applicant has to be determined as per the policy applicable at the time of presenting the application for the first time before the department concerned. Now therefore, the undersigned after taking all aspects of the case i.e. judgment on the Hon’ble Court, position explained above, reveals that the claim of the applicant for regularization from the date of initial appointment i.e. 10.04.2007 is not squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1557-1564 of 2019, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram etc., decided on 08.02.2019. As respondent-Corporation had already amended R&P Rules w.e.f. 03.08.2006, whereas the employment case of the petitioner was received in this office on 05.02.2007 after the attaining the age of majority i.e. after amendment of R&P Rules. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for regularization from initial date of appointment is hereby considered and rejected being devoid of merit. It is in this background that the present petition has been filed. 3. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for regularization from initial date of appointment is hereby considered and rejected being devoid of merit. It is in this background that the present petition has been filed. 3. The petition is resisted by the respondent-Corporation on the ground that the petitioner applied for employment under the kith and kin policy after he attained the age of majority and in terms of the policy in issue, he was rightly appointed on contract basis initially in the year 2007 and thereafter his services were regularized upon completion of six years service. As per the respondent-Corporation, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above as the employment case of the petitioner was received on 05.02.2007 i.e. after amendment of the relevant Rules, whereas case of the persons who are party in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram, were received prior to 03.08.2006. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. Few facts which are not in dispute are as under :- The father of the petitioner died in harness on 25.10.2000. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra) was pleased to uphold the judgment passed by this Court in which it was held by this Court that the case of the petitioner therein had to be considered in accordance with the policy in existence on the date when father of Sh. Lekh Ram retired from service. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as it was not in dispute that the policy which was in existence did not stipulate making of such appointment on contract basis, therefore, Lekh Ram was eligible for appointment i.e. compassionate appointment on regular basis from the initial date of appointment. 6. In the present case as already mentioned above, the father of the petitioner died on 25.10.2000. Admittedly, the policy which was enforced at the relevant time did not envisage appointment on compassionate basis on contract. The policy in issue as is borne out from the record of the case with regard to appointment of kith and kin policy on compassionate basis was amended by the Corporation on 12.12.2003 and this amendment was made effective w.e.f. 02.08.2006. Admittedly, the policy which was enforced at the relevant time did not envisage appointment on compassionate basis on contract. The policy in issue as is borne out from the record of the case with regard to appointment of kith and kin policy on compassionate basis was amended by the Corporation on 12.12.2003 and this amendment was made effective w.e.f. 02.08.2006. In the present case, the petitioner had attained the majority before 02.08.2006, as his date of birth 16.07.1988. 7. During the course of the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an office order dated 28.07.2021, issued by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to the Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla/Hamirpur/Mandi/Dharamshala on the subject regarding regularization of Class-III (employees) appointed under kith and kin policy and similar situated with Lekh Ram case. The relevant extract of this communication reads as under:- A perusal of this communication demonstrates that the respondent-Corporation has now taken a policy decision to regularize the services of all employees who were appointed under kith and kin policy on contract basis from the date of initial appointment provided the case of the death of the parents happened before 03.08.2006 i.e. prior to adoption of contractual policy notified by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh in 2003 and also the representationists being not a minor before 03.08.2006. 8. The petitioner herein fulfills both these parameters. His father died in harness before 03.08.2006 and he was not minor as on 03.08.2006. In this background, the rejection of the case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly ordered to be quashed for the reason that the petitioner cannot be denied regularization from the initial date of his appointment on the hyper technical ground that his case was received by the office for employment under kith and kin policy on 05.02.2007. The touch stone is the date of death of the father of the petitioner and also as to whether or not as on 03.08.2006, he was a minor. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussions held hereinafter, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the initial date of his appointment on contract basis. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussions held hereinafter, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the initial date of his appointment on contract basis. The above period of service shall also be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and for terminal benefits as and when they fall due in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra). Arrears of salary shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.