1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20558 of 2025 Decided on: 29.12.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajesh Singh Jasrotia …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr.Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to regularize his services on completion of three years of contractual service. From the petition, it appears that petitioner was appointed as Patwari on contract basis vide office order dated 12.10.2015. F.I.R. No. 5/2016 was 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 registered against the petitioner on 16.07.2016 under Sections 7 & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Vigilance, Dharamshala whereunder petitioner was arrested and later on released on bail by the learned Special Judge. Petitioner’s services were terminated on 02.01.2018 by the respondents. Petitioner assailed the termination order by instituting O.A.(D) No.281 of 2018 before the Erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. In view of certain directions issued in the said case, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondents. The reinstatement order is not on record. The terms and conditions of reinstatement thereof are not available. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any legal recourse against the terms & conditions of reinstatement order. He now seeks direction to the respondents to regularize his services from the date of completion of three years of contractual service. Petition also mentions that petitioner has now been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in F.I.R. No.5/2016 by the learned Special Judge-I, Kangra at Dharmashala vide judgment dated 05.03.2025. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are as under:- “i) That issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner 3 from the date he completed the requisite three years of contract service. ii) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay, financial benefits, seniority, and promotions etc. To the petitioner from the due date of regularization.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had preferred a representation to the respondents on 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) seeking his regularization on completion of three years of contractual service in accordance with law. The respondents have not decided the aforesaid representation till date. The petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 29, 2025 Judge yogesh