JUDGMENT : Heard. In my considered view, there is no need to give any further time to the State to have instructions as the matter can be disposed of by this Court in view of office order dated 25.08.2020 placed on record by the petitioner. 2. Just to give a few facts, petitioner herein was appointed as a JBT on contract basis on 20.03.2014 and he was posted at GPS Dimb, Education Block Kalehel. A copy of his appointment order is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. In terms of the instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh dated 04.05.2017, Annexure P2, contractual employees, who have completed three years of service as on 31.03.2017 are to be regularized. The services of the petitioner admittedly have not been regularized on account of the pendency of FIR No. 327 of 2015, which stands registered against him alongwith six other JBT teachers at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, under Sections 419, 420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code and ensuing criminal proceedings whereof are sub judice before the Court. This is apparent from the response, which has been filed by the State to the petition. 3. Office order dated 25.08.2020 Annexure A-1 issued by Deputy Director Elementary Education, Chamba, Distt. Chamba, H.P. demonstrates that PAT teachers named therein were ordered to be regularized as JBT teachers, subject to the final outcome/decision of the Court case/FIR pending against them. Meaning thereby, their regularization was not delayed for pending of FIR. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent-Department cannot have different yardsticks for similarly situated persons. Had the Policy of the Department been that JBT teachers or other teachers, who were serving in the Department on contract basis and against whom criminal cases were pending, were not to be regularized till the final outcome of the criminal cases, then, the issue would have been different. Herein, what the Court finds is that whereas on one hand, the petitioner has been denied regularization on the basis of pendency of an FIR against him, however, persons similarly situated as the petitioner have been regularized subject to the outcome of the FIR. That being the case, the denial of regularization to the petitioner obviously violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as similarly situated persons are not being treated alike by the respondent-Department. That being the case, the denial of regularization to the petitioner obviously violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as similarly situated persons are not being treated alike by the respondent-Department. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as a JBT teacher from the due date with all consequential benefits, which of course, shall be subject to the final outcome of the Court case/FIR, which is pending against the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.