IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8084 of 2025 Decided on: 29th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Happy Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s case is that his father Sh. Bhoop Singh was serving as Beldar on regular basis in the respondent-HPPWD. He died in harness on 28.09.2014. Petitioner was minor at that time. Petitioner’s mother Smt. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Jota Devi applied for employment on compassionate ground. Consideration of her case was deferred by the respondents. It was on 27.07.2021, when the respondents rejected the employment assistance case of Smt. Jota Devi on the ground that she did not fulfill requisite educational qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for appointment as Beldar. 3. Petitioner on attaining the age of majority, applied for compassionate employment on 30.12.2022. Respondents have rejected his case on 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) only on the ground that they had previously turned down the compassionate employment case of his mother. It is in the above background, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. A perusal of impugned office order shows that respondents had turned down employment assistance case of petitioner’s mother Smt. Jota Devi on 27.07.2021 for the reason that she was not in possession of requisite educational qualifications. It is the case of the petitioner that he was minor at the time of death of his father. On becoming major, he applied for compassionate employment on 30.12.2022 after the rejection of employment assistance - 3 - case of his mother. The respondents have not passed any speaking order on the application moved by the petitioner. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, when petitioner’s mother’s employment assistance case was rejected only on the ground of her being not in possession of requisite educational qualifications, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have considered the case of the petitioner on its own merits. 5. In view of above, office order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate employment, afresh in accordance with applicable policy within a period of six weeks from today and pass appropriate orders. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 29, 2025 R.Atal