2025:HHC:8745 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.986 of 2024 Decided on: 2nd April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitika …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.5517 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.986 of 2024 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Following facts are not in dispute:- 2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Patwari on contractual basis on 04.08.2018. She joined as such on 06.08.2018. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 2025:HHC:8745 2(ii). On completion of three years of service on contract basis, services of the batch-mates of the petitioner were regularized as per the applicable policy guidelines. Services of the petitioner, however, were not regularized. This was for the reason that FIR No.93/2019, dated 10.05.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur against some accused persons, wherein name of the petitioner was kept in Column No.12. 2(iii). Petitioner represented on 27.01.2023 to the respondents that services of her batch-mates had been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2021. She was also entitled for the same treatment. Her services were also required to be regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2021 alongwith all other consequential benefits including seniority. Petitioner also highlighted in her representation that even though mere registration of FIR and pendency of criminal case does not debar a candidate from government service or regularization of his/her services, yet, in the instant case, petitioner was not even an accused in the FIR. Her name had been mentioned only in Column No.12 as a suspect. 3 2025:HHC:8745 2(iv). Petitioner’s representation was considered by the respondents alongwith the representation of one Sh. Sunil Dutt Joshi. The Department of Personnel vide its letter dated 26.10.2023, opined as under:- “Examined. It is observed that as per instructions dated 28.12.2021, there is a condition that regularization shall be subject to verification of character and antecedents of the candidate being considered for regularization, as provided in the H.P. Financial Rules. These instructions nowhere provide that the candidate, against whom a criminal case is pending, shall be regarded as disqualified for regularization. It is a settled principle that no person is presumed to be guilty of an offence unless convicted by a competent Court after trial. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the regularization policy of contractual appointees issued by the State Govt. from time to time, regularization will be with prospective effect i.e. from the date of issue of regularization order. There is no provision of considering regularization from retrospective date. Therefore, the Department is advised to examine the matter accordingly.” The Department of Personnel was of the view that there was no bar for regularization of a candidate against whom a criminal case was pending. That person cannot be presumed to be guilty of an offence unless convicted by a competent Court after trial. However, there was an observation in the above extracted opinion that as per the regularization policy(s) of the contractual appointees issued by the State from time to time, regularization has to be from prospective effect, i.e. from the date of issuance of 4 2025:HHC:8745 regularization order. That there is no provision for considering regularization from retrospective date. 2(v). The Administrative Department set out to implement the advice rendered by the Department of Personnel. Accordingly, an office order was issued on 28.12.2022, regularizing the services of the petitioner as Patwari from the date of issuance of office order, i.e. 28.12.2022 alongwith one Sh. Sunil Dutt Joshi. Petitioner feels aggrieved against office order dated 28.12.2022 to the extent it does not confer upon her regularization from the due date. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. It is an admitted position that services of the batch-mates of the petitioner were regularized by the respondents w.e.f. 01.10.2021. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner was not eligible or did not satisfy any condition that barred consideration of her case for regularization at par with that of her batch-mates. The respondents admittedly did not consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on account of pendency of FIR No.93/2019. 5 2025:HHC:8745 In Deepa Versus State of H.P. and another2, the law on the issue has been summed up that mere registration of criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for the appointing authority to deny appointment or for that matter withhold regularization. In the instant case, admittedly even the FIR in question had not been registered against the petitioner. Her name was only mentioned in Column No.12 as a suspect. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner on 01.10.2021 at par with those of her batch-mates was not justified. Respondents realized their mistake and regularized petitioner’s services on and w.e.f. 28.12.2022. Petitioner has admittedly continued to serve as Patwari with the respondents. In such circumstances, regularization of petitioner’s services from prospective date, i.e. from the date of issuance of office order dated 28.12.2022, by the respondents while rectifying their past error on the advice of Personnel Department, cannot be sustained. Petitioner’s services are required to be regularized with effect from the due date, i.e. 01.10.2021, at par with her batch-mates. 2 CWP No.10650 of 2023, decided on 20.03.2025 6 2025:HHC:8745 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Patwari from the due date i.e. 01.10.2021, at par with her batch-mates, with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 02, 2025 Judge Mukesh