IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8277 of 2024 Decided on 04th June, 2026 Uploaded on:-05.06.2026 Arun …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: Mr. Chander Shekhar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned office order dated 30.11.2023 i.e. Annexure P-10. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Part Time Water Carrier at GPS Kajar Education Block Narag, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P., where the post of Part Time Water Carrier is lying vacant till date in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the impugned order his case for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Authority on the ground that he is not even possessing the minimum qualification for appointment against a Class-IV post, be it on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the late father of the petitioner was initially appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier. Thereafter, the services of the late father of the petitioner were converted to daily wage basis in the month of January, 2019 and he died in harness on 23.01.2023, while serving on daily wage basis. He submitted that in the light of the fact that late father of the petitioner was initially engaged as a Part Time Contingent Paid Worker, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that he is not possessing the minimum qualification of matriculation to be appointed as a daily wage Class-IV employee is not sustainable, because, the petitioner should be offered appointment as a Part Time Contingent Paid Worker for which there is no minimum educational qualification required. 3 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered strictly in consonance with the compassionate policy in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner unfortunately passed away. He submitted that in the light of the fact that the policy itself envisages that compassionate appointment is to be provided subject to fulfillment of minimum educational qualification and such skills as are prescribed for the post, in the absence of the petitioner fulfilling the minimum educational qualification criteria to be appointed against a Class-IV post, be it on daily wage basis, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on this count cannot be faulted with. 4. To counter this, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-11 and submitted that in terms of this notification dated 27.07.2001, respondent-State had introduced and framed a recruitment scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers and as per Clause-12 thereof which deals with compassionate ground appointment the Government, has the power to appoint any candidate as a Part Time Water Carrier 4 on compassionate ground without following the selection process and the petitioner can be easily adjusted against this Clause. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record. 6. It is a matter of record that the late father of the petitioner died in harness while serving the Department on daily wage basis as a Class-IV employee. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post in issue and now in terms of the impugned Annexure i.e. Annexure P-10 dated 30.11.2023, the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Authority by assigning the following reasons:- “And whereas, the case of the petitioner examined in view of the compassionate appointment policy and found that the petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Class-IV on compassionate ground. As per the educational qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner (only 8th class completion certificate issued by the Principals GSSS Wasni, District Sirmour), he is 8th passed. As per the Clause 5(b) of the compassionate appointment policy dated 07.03.2019, the applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respect under the provisions of the 5 relevant Recruitment Rules. As per R&P Rules for the post of Class-IV, the Minimum Educational qualification is Matriculation or its equivalent from recognized Board of School Education/Institution. The petitioner is 8th pass and therefore he does not fulfill the minimum educational qualification of the post i.e. Class-IV, for which he has applied. Hence he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. Now therefore, in view of the above facts, the case of the petitioner is hereby rejected after due consideration. All the concerned be intimated accordingly.” 7. Annexure P-8 is the compassionate employment policy that was introduced by the State Government vide office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 which is in force and which was taken into consideration by the Department while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis. 8. A perusal of Clause-4 of the said policy demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that compassionate appointment is to be provided basically in the Department to which the deceased employee or the medically retired employee belonged, subject to fulfillment of minimum educational qualification and such skills as are prescribed for the post. It is further mentioned in the said Clause that in case 6 the deceased employee was a daily wage worker, the employment assistant shall be given on daily wage basis only and compassionate employment to be given against Class-IV posts will be on daily wage basis. 9. Thus, a perusal of this Clause, inter alia, demonstrates that in order to be eligible to seek appointment on compassionate ground, the candidate has to fulfill the minimum educational qualification and also such skills, as may be prescribed for the post. 10. Herein, it is not in dispute that to be appointed against a Class-IV post, be it on daily wage basis, the minimum qualification is matriculation. In terms of the impugned order, the qualification of the petitioner is 8th Class only. Therefore, as obviously, the petitioner does not possesses the minimum educational qualification to be appointed against a Class-IV post, no grievance can be made by the petitioner qua the rejection of his claim on said count. 11. Now incidentally, it is not as if the Authority has arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis by holding that because the petitioner 7 was not possessing the minimum educational qualification, therefore, he is not eligible for being appointed on compassionate basis. This reasoning which has been given by the Authority is based on Clause-4 of the compassionate employment policy dated 07.03.2019 which is in vogue. Incidentally, there is no challenge to this Clause of the policy in the present petition and that being the case, as it could not be pointed out that the findings returned to the effect that the petitioner was not possessing the minimum educational qualification are perverse findings and the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. 12. As far as the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner can be considered for appointment in terms of Annexure P-11, notification dated 27.07.2001 is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is completely misplaced for the reason that Clause-12 of this policy otherwise has been held to be ultra vires by this Court in earlier litigations. 8 13. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 04, 2026 (Vinod)