( 2025:HHC:26591 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1255 of 2025 and LPA No.504 of 2025. Decided on: 05.08.2025 Sumeet Kumar Bhatia ....Appellant/Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.1255 of 2025. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of Sumeet Kumar Bhatia, delay of 85 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.504 of 2025. 3. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the learned Single 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition, filed by the appellant, wherein the prayer as such was made for compassionate appointment on account of the fact that his wife had expired, was dismissed. 4. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that the averments were made that the wife of the petitioner/appellant herein was working as Patwari in District Kangra before her death. The petitioner, after obtaining three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering was working as Lab-Attendant in Government College, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh. 5. The learned Single Judge had noticed in the order dated 10.01.2025 that the petitioner had faced trial with regard to the death of his wife and he was acquitted by the learned Trial Court in the year 2007 and therefater, the State had filed an appeal in this Court, which was dismissed in the year 2016 and the Apex Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on 27.02.2017. In such circumstances, the relief of compassionate appointment as such has been denied by the learned Single Judge. 6. It is settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment and its only for the exigency of the situation that the benefit as such is to be granted 3 as held by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138. The relevant para reads as under:- “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 7. Thus, the purpose of the compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the needy family at the stage, when the earning hand is taken away. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge had noticed that the applicant himself is 52 years old and has now become overage. Since the petitioner-appellant herein has approached the Court at the belated stage, no direction can be passed to the respondents to engage the petitioner on compassionate basis, that too, from the year 2004. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a contrary view when the learned Single Judge has chosen not to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 8. Having said so, no interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge is called for as it does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which would warrant interference, keeping in view the settled principles of law, as noticed above. 9. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 5th August, 2025 (munish thakur)