2025:HHC:16814 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8900 of 2025 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kamal Kishore ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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. In views of nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply to the petition is not required to be called from the respondents. 2. Respondents had rejected the case of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2025:HHC:16814 - 2 - petitioner for employment on compassionate ground on 15.10.2014, 29.10.2014 and 08.02.021. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner had instituted CWP No. 8553 of 2022. The said writ petition was decided on 18.03.2024. Relevant portion of the decision is as under:- “5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis a vis reasoning assigned in the impugned orders, this Court finds that the facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. It is not in dispute that late father of the petitioner was in Government service and he died in harness. It is also not in dispute that at the first instance, petitioner being fully eligible applied for compassionate appointment on 02.08.2010, which prayer of him was required to be considered in terms of the policy in vogue. Having perused order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P-10), whereby first application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of financial criteria, this Court finds force in the submissions of Mr. Khidtta, that afore order was passed in a slipshod manner because, neither there is any discussion with regard to income of the family of deceased employee nor with regard to parameters, which were required to be adhered to by the department, while considering the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. If the communication dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-9) issued under the signatures of Director of Higher Education is perused, it reveals that at the relevant time, income of the family of the deceased employee was Rs.1,10,660/- and while arriving at aforesaid figure, income from pension was also taken into consideration. Though, as per policy in vogue in the year 2025:HHC:16814 - 3 - 2013, income from pension otherwise could not be taken into consideration, while computing annual income of the applicant, but even otherwise, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel, that petitioner was eligible to be offered appointment for the reasons that even at that relevant time, income of the petitioner was less than Rs.1,25,000/-, as has been admitted by the respondents in their reply to the petition. Similarly, this Court finds that vide order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-11), respondents rejected the case of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. If the aforesaid communication is perused, it cannot be said that case of the petitioner at the relevant time was considered in light of the policy in vogue, rather in a stereotyped manner, department again reiterated that case of the petitioner cannot be accepted on account of higher income. 6. Leaving everything aside, both the aforesaid orders never came to be communicated to the petitioner. Though, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that aforesaid orders were very much in the knowledge of the petitioner, but even if it is so, where was the occasion for the department to consider the case of the petitioner time and again. Firstly, the case of the petitioner was considered in the year 2013 and thereafter in the year 2014 and lastly in the year 2021. Needless to say, with the change in income criteria in the policies starting from 2010 to 2019, every time, there was an increase in financial criteria and in that eventuality, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the department to re- consider the case of the petitioner, may be on his repeated applications, rather repeated applications could only be rejected on one ground that the case of the petitioner already stands rejected vide order dated 15.10.2014. However, in the case at hand, department considered the 2025:HHC:16814 - 4 - case of the petitioner thrice, but every time, instead of passing detailed/reasoned order, rejected the same on the ground that petitioner exceeds the income criteria, whereas, as has been noticed hereinabove, at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner in the year 2014, his income was less than Rs.1,25,000/-. If it is so, his case otherwise could not have been rejected for compassionate appointment. Lastly, the case of the petitioner came to be rejected on 08.02.2021 (Annexure P21). Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reveals that the case of the petitioner came to be scrutinized by the Screening Committee constituted at Directorate level in terms of Government Notification dated 07.03.2019 & 01.11.2019 and the petitioner was found unfit on account of his having exceeded income criteria. Annexures annexed with the aforesaid communication (available at page Nos.87 & 88) nowhere reveal discussion, if any, with regard to income of the petitioner vis-a-vis income criteria provided in the policy of 2019 and as such, this Court is compelled to draw a conclusion that aforesaid orders came to be passed in a slipshod manner, without any application of mind, rather authorities in routine manner as they had been doing since the year 2013, again rejected the case of the petitioner without holding proper inquiry. 7. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that since death of father of the petitioner had taken place in the year 2009, case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, could only be considered in light of the policy in vogue at the relevant time. Consideration, if any, of the case of the petitioner in light of policy of 2019, is of no consequence because by that time admittedly, income criteria provided in the earlier policies had under gone a sea change. Even if, it is accepted that case of the 2025:HHC:16814 - 5 - petitioner was required to be considered in light of the policy of the year 2019, petitioner ought to have been offered compassionate appointment on account of the fact that at the relevant time, income of the family of the petitioner was less than Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. 2,42,800/-, whereas, as per policy of 2019, minimum income has been fixed at Rs.2,80,000/-, which fact has been otherwise, admitted in the reply filed by the respondents” It was held in the above decision that in the impugned rejection orders issued by the respondents, there was neither discussion with regard to family income of the deceased nor with regard to parameters required to be adhered by the Department while considering petitioner’s prayer. The impugned order had been passed in a slipshod manner. Respondents had rejected the case of the petitioner without assigning any reason. The Court also discussed the issue of income of the petitioner vis-à-vis the parameters laid down in the applicable policy for considering the case of the petitioner for employment assistance. In view of detailed discussion in the judgment, following directions were issued:- “8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned orders dated 15.10.2014, 29.10.2014 and 08.02.2021 (Annexure P-10, Annexure P-11 & Annexure P-21) are quashed and set aside with direction to the department to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of 2025:HHC:16814 - 6 - observation made hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, respondents shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court, if he still remains aggrieved.” As per the above directions, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside. Respondents were directed to consider petitioner’s case afresh in view of observations made in the decision within a period of four weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Respondents were further directed to pass a speaking order. 3. In purported compliance to the above decision, respondent No.2 issued office order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-27), rejecting the case of the petitioner. The only reasoning deducible from the impugned order for rejecting the case of petitioner is as under:- “Now therefore, after examining the case thoroughly in compliance to judgment in CWP No. 8553 of 2022 dated 18.03.2024, I have reached to the conclusion that as per FD OM dated 22.08.2022 and as per Hon'ble Apex Court orders in No. SLP (C) No. 7079 of 2016 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shashi Kumar the case of Sh. Kamal Kishore S/o Late Sh Hans Raj Vill Damohad PO Jasana Teh. Bangana Distt Una has already been rejected. As per FD OM dated 22.08.2022 and 2025:HHC:16814 - 7 - Instructions dated 17.02.2025 if a case is already decided/rejected it may not be appropriate to consider the case afresh. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is considered and stand rejected. May inform the parties accordingly.” 4. In the aforesaid reasoning, respondent No.2 has held that there is an office memorandum dated 22.08.2022 and instructions dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Finance Department that if a case had already been decided/ rejected, it may not be appropriate to consider the case afresh. Therefore, since the case of the petitioner had already been rejected previously, his claim once again is considered and rejected. The aforesaid reasoning is in breach of categoric and clear directions issued in CWP No. 8553 of 2022, wherein the previous orders passed by the respondents, rejecting employment assistance case of the petitioner had been quashed & set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the case afresh in light of observations made in the decision, by passing a speaking order. The impugned order dated 13.03.2025 is not a speaking order. It simply states that since the case of the petitioner had been previously rejected, therefore, there is no 2025:HHC:16814 - 8 - question of deciding it afresh. Respondents have no authority to sit over the judgment passed by this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General assures that he will apprise the concerned quarters & concerned authorities to be careful and vigilant in future while implementing the Court decisions. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.03.2025 is quashed and set aside subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-, payable by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. Fresh orders strictly in terms of decision render in CWP No. 8553 of 2022 be passed within three weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 30, 2025 R.Atal