IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6154 of 2024 Decided on: 23rd June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anupam Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Gist of petitioner’s case is that his services are required to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment as Clerk on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds. On the basis of this relief, petitioner also claims consequential benefits including placing him at an appropriate place in the seniority list of Junior Assistants/Clerks. 2. It is not in dispute that:- 2(i). Petitioner’s father Sh. Ishwar Dass, was serving as Beldar on daily wage basis in the respondent-Animal Husbandry Department. He died in harness on 08.09.2005. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2(ii). Petitioner being son of late Sh. Ishwar Dass-a daily wage employee, applied for compassionate employment. The respondent-Department considered petitioner’s case and offered appointment to him on 31.07.2013 against the post of Clerk on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds. Petitioner accepted the offer and joined his duties as daily waged Clerk on 14.08.2013. 2(iii). Petitioner’s services were regularized on 10.10.2018 in accordance with the regularization policy issued by the respondent-State on 11.05.2018. Petitioner accepted this order as well. 2(iv). Respondents issued seniority lists of Junior Assistants/Clerks in the Animal Husbandry Department from time to time. Final seniority list of Junior Assistants/Clerks circulated on 18.09.2019 and tentative seniority list circulated on 15.05.2023 have been placed on record. The incumbents were assigned seniority in these lists keeping in view the date of regularization of their services. The name of the petitioner was reflected in these seniority lists on the basis of date of regularization of his services, i.e. 10.10.2018. 2(v). On 31.05.2024, petitioner filed this writ petition with the grievance that he was required to be treated as regularly appointed from the date of his initial appointment 3 on compassionate grounds on daily wage basis i.e. with effect from 14.08.2013. That on the basis of this relief, petitioner’s placement in the seniority list is also required to be shifted to the appropriate place i.e. by treating his appointment as regular w.e.f. 14.08.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents had revised the policy for compassionate appointment under office memorandum dated 07.03.2019. Clause 15 thereof provided that a person appointed on compassionate ground in a particular year may be placed at the bottom of all the candidates recruited/appointed through direct recruitment, promotion etc. in that year, irrespective of the date of joining of the candidate on compassionate ground. It was further submitted that the petitioner having been appointed on 14.08.2013, was required to be assigned the seniority/place at the bottom of the batch recruited during the year 2013. 4. The above contentions of the petitioner lack merit. This is for the following reasons:- 4(i). The respondents had offered appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner on 31.07.2013 on daily wage basis. Petitioner accepted the offer without any demur or protest & joined as such on 14.08.2013. He continued to discharge his duties as such. His services 4 were regularized by the respondent-Department on 10.10.2018. Petitioner accepted this office order as well. He was accordingly assigned seniority on the basis of his date of regularization. It is pleaded case that first representation, the petitioner ever moved with the prayer for regularizing his services from the date of his initial appointment was on 29.01.2024, which was rejected by the respondents on 19.02.2024. Petitioner has not explained delay and laches in seeking the relief. In this regard, it would also be pertinent to refer to Surinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Others2. Some of the points framed therein for adjudication, which are relevant for decision of present petition, read as under:- “Points No.(iv): Whether the applicant can claim appointment on compassionate ground against a higher cadre, once he had been appointed in the lower cadre? Point No.(v): In case a person is appointed on contract basis, whether he is within his rights to seek appointment on regular basis? Point No.(vi): In a given set of cases, in one case the appointment on compassionate ground has been offered against a Class-III post and in other case, the appointment has been offered to a Class-IV post, whether it amounts to discrimination?” While deciding the above points, it was inter-alia held as under by the Court:- 2 CWP No. 9094/2013 with connected matters decided on 06.10.2015 5 “76. The discretion to offer appointment on compassionate ground is vested with the respondents/Authorities and it is for the said Authorities to see whether a person is to be appointed against a Class-IV or Class-III post or on daily wage basis and that discretion cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination, and that too, when a person has accepted the offer of appointment and joined without any demur and enjoyed the benefits. However, there is also no quarrel about the proposition that the Authority, who is vested with the discretion of making appointment on compassionate ground, is expected to exercise the discretion vested in it judiciously and without being influenced, strictly in accordance with the provisions envisaged in the Policy, so that the avowed object sought to be achieved by the State, by framing such a policy, is achieved. 77. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the incumbents, who have been appointed on a particular post and have joined to the said post without expressing any reluctance or protest, such incumbents are precluded from claiming that they should either be appointed to a higher post or should have been given appointment on regular basis, instead of employment on contract basis, or have been discriminated viz. a viz. similarly paced persons.” The above observations are applicable to the facts of instant case. Petitioner had accepted the given offer of compassionate appointment and joined as Clerk on daily wage basis on 14.08.2013 without any demur and enjoyed the benefits over period of more than ten years. At this stage, he is precluded from claiming that he should have been given appointment on regular basis instead of daily wage basis. Endeavour of learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking applicability of Compassionate Employment 6 Policy dated 07.03.2019 is otherwise also misplaced as petitioner’s appointment does not relate to this policy. He was appointed on 31.07.2013 under the policy then in force. 4(ii). The second relief prayed for by the petitioner is dependent upon grant of first relief. Since first relief has not been allowed to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the second relief as well. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 23, 2025 Judge Mukesh