IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6311 of 2022 Decided on: 08.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravi Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.S.Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the rejection of his case by the respondents under office letter dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure P-6) for providing him employment on compassionate grounds, hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 2(i). Petitioner’s father Sh.Laxmi Dutt was appointed as regular Baildar in the respondent-Irrigation and Public Health Department on 01.01.1994. He died in harness on 16.05.2016. The deceased left behind two legal heirs viz 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 son (petitioner) and his wife. The death certificate of Sh. Laxmi Dutt has been annexed with the writ petition alongwith legal heir certificate. Petitioner applied for providing him employment on compassionate grounds . Vide letter appended at Annexure P-5, the matter was processed by the respondent- Department. 2(ii) Annexure P-7 dated 14.05.2019 clearly gives out that on the request of the petitioner to employ him on compassionate grounds, the respondent-Department addressed an office letter on 03.07.2017 to the Finance Department, which, inter alia, directed the respondent - Department to examine and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Finance Department Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2019. Respondents rejected petitioner’s request on 27.08.2021 on the ground that petitioner’s family income was in excess to the income criteria stipulated in the aforesaid office memorandum (Compassionate employment Policy dated 07.03.2019). 3. It is no longer res-integra that the claim for compassionate appointment has to be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme, which was prevalent on the date in question. Subsequent scheme cannot be looked into for the 3 purpose. It will be appropriate in this regard to refer to Indian Bank and Others Vs. Promila and another2, which in turn relied upon Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar3. Relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted as under:- “18. The question of applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank (supra) . Thus, it would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent Schemes, but only in the context of the Scheme of 4.4.1979, the terms of which continued to be applicable even as per the new Scheme of 5.11.1985, i.e. the Scheme applicable to the respondents. There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex gratia payment. The option of compassionate appointment was available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken, something which was done. Thus, having taken the full amount of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really was not available to the respondents. 19. We may also notice that though the subsequent Schemes were not applicable, even if benefit was sought to be given of those Schemes, initial non- disclosure and subsequent disclosure by respondent No.1, of her employment and her emoluments would disentitle her under those Schemes, too. Thus, when the appellant was calling upon the respondents to apply under the subsequent Schemes, that could have been 2 (2020) 2 SCC 729 3 (2015) 7 SCC 412 4 beneficial to the respondents only if they were entitled to any of the benefits under that Scheme. That could not happen because the benchmark provided in those subsequent Schemes took the emoluments of respondents beyond the prescribed limit, so as to disentitle them from both, compassionate employment and ex gratia payment. 20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim benefit, through, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank. It is not for the Courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasised by this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Parkash Chand.” In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors Vs. Ashish Awasthi4 , it was reiterated that the Policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be 4 Civil Appeal No.6903/2021 decided on 18.11.2021 5 considered and not the subsequent policy. Relevant para from the judgment is extracted as under:- “4.1 …………….it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496.It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 4. In light of above legal position, rejection of case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of policy dated 07.03.2019, cannot be sustained. Father of the petitioner had died on 16.05.2016. Petitioner had applied for compassionate employment at least much prior to 03.07.2017. The policy for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was prevalent on 16.05.2016 was to be considered for examining the case of the petitioner and not the 2019 Policy. 6 Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2/Competent Authority is directed to examine the case of the petitioner afresh for employment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the above observations and pass appropriate order within a period of three weeks from today. The order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 8, 2026 Judge R.Atal