IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8808 of 2022 Decided on 22nd April, 2026 Shri Kailash Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: M/s Onkar Jairath and Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been denied regularization in an illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence. ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with all 2 consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.2019 as has been done with the other incumbents vide order dated 01.04.2019.” 2. The issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was engaged as a Patwari on contract basis vide office order dated 12.10.2015. Upon completion of requisite number of years’ service on contract basis, when persons, who were engaged alongwith the petitioner were regularized in the year 2019, he stood ignored on account of the pendency of an FIR registered against him, i.e. FIR No.50 of 2017, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial of regularization to the petitioner on the ground of registration of an FIR against him is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because said FIR is neither relatable to his performance of duties with the respondent-Department nor the same has been registered for commission of offences involving moral turpitude. Learned counsel referred to the judgments of this Court passed in CWPOA No.2611 of 2020, titled Kuldeep Singh 3 versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 06.12.2021, CWP No.4719 of 2022, titled Vinod Kumar Pal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 26.09.2023 as also in CWP No.8939 of 2023, titled Ashwani Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 04.04.2025 and submitted that in all these cases, this Court has consistently held that registration of an FIR cannot come in the way of an incumbent in his regularization. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as there is an FIR registered against the petitioner, copy whereof, is appended with the petition as Annexure R-6 at Police Station Jawali, therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for regularization. He submitted that the case will be considered as and when the matter in issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. 5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if one peruses the FIR, contents thereof would demonstrate that the FIR is primarily against a company, in which, the petitioner was just an employee, which allegedly defrauded its depositors. Learned counsel further submitted 4 that till date charges have also not been framed in the trial and if the services of the petitioner are not regularized awaiting the outcome of the trial, then, irreparable loss shall be caused to the petitioner which is evident from the fact that the FIR was registered in the year 2017 and for almost a decade, even service of accused in the Trial is not comply. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 7. Annexure R-6 is the copy of the FIR which has been registered against the petitioner and has been appended by the State with the reply. The same is registered under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code already mentioned hereinabove, primarily on the ground that one Ezeee Way Infrastructure & Land Developers Ltd., had duped its customers of the money deposited by them with the said company. The FIR also demonstrates that the petitioner was made the State Head of the company. 5 8. The FIR was registered on 23.03.2017. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged in the said company in the year 2009 and he resigned from the said company on 14.03.2013. He has appended the resignation letter with the petition as Annexure P-5. 9. Be that as it may, this Court is not adjudicating the issue of the culpability of the petitioner as far as the FIR is concerned. The moot issue which this Court has to decide is as to whether on account of the lodging of the said FIR, regularization could have been denied to the petitioner or not. 10. While dealing with a similar situation, this Court in CWPOA No.2611 of 2020, titled Kuldeep Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others observed that denial of regularization to a PAT Teacher as JBT Teacher on the ground that there was an FIR pending against him, was not sustainable in the eyes of law, more so, in the light of the fact that it stood established on record that the Education Department had on earlier occasions regularized even those PAT/JBT Teachers against whom certain FIRs were registered. 6 11. Similarly, in Vinod Kumar Pal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra), this Court held that until and unless there is a provision in the policy of regularization suggestive of the fact that persons against whom criminal cases stand registered, shall not be considered for regularization, pendency of an FIR cannot come in the way of the regularization of an incumbent. Thereafter, in Ashwani Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another (supra), the same view has been reiterated by this Court. 12. During the course of the hearing of this petition, it could not be pointed out by the State that there is any impediment in law or in terms of any instructions/rules governing regularization framed by the State Government, an incumbent who is to be considered for regularization, shall not be so considered, in case, there is any FIR etc., pending against him. That being the case, obviously, the lodging of the FIR in the present case cannot come in the way of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner. 13. One more fact which cannot be ignored by the Court is that the FIR has been registered in the year 2017. It 7 has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that till date even charges have not been framed in the matter. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial is at the stage of service of the other accused only. Obviously, if that is the stage, at which the trial is, it would not be unreasonable for this Court to draw the inference that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. The petitioner, who at the time when he filed the petition was 48 years old by now, is about 52 years old. If the trial takes another 5 to 6 years, the petitioner would superannuate in the interregnum, while serving on contract basis only. This, obviously, would be unjust to the petitioner, more so, in light of the adjudications by this Court referred to hereinabove that pendency of an FIR cannot come in the way of the regularization of an incumbent. 14. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the 2019, when services of similar incumbents were regularized, is held to be bad. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from the due date when the services of 8 other incumbents were regularized and confer upon him all benefits including seniority etc., from the due date. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 22, 2026 (Vinod)