IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No 5394/2023 Decided on: 20.06.2025 Mohit …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner is presently aged about 23 years. His grievance is to the office communication dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure P-6), whereby the respondents rejected his case for employment on compassionate ground. 2. It is an admitted position that petitioner’s father late Sh. Hans Raj was appointed as a Contract Teacher against the post of Junior Basic Teacher on 03.01.2000. He died in harness on 19.07.2009 after serving for about nine years and six months. He was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 survived by his son-present petitioner & daughter (both were minors at that time) and his wife Smt. Rekha Devi (petitioner’s mother). From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is evident that petitioner’s mother Smt. Rekha Devi also died two months later i.e. on 24.09.2009 leaving behind petitioner and his sister. After attaining the age of majority, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2020. The respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it on 30.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that petitioner’s father had died as a contractual employee; The Policy for employing Kith & Kin of contractual employees came into force on 04.09.2012, whereas petitioner’s father had died on 19.07.2009 i.e. prior to the said date. The same stand has been adopted by the respondents for opposing the claim made by the petitioner in reply to the instant petition. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General defended impugned decision of the respondents. According to him, the employment assistance policy dated 18.01.1990, in vogue at the time of death of petitioner’s father did not envisage providing employment to kith & kin of deceased contractual employee. Petitioner’s employment assistance case was therefore rejected. Benefit of office memorandum dated 04.09.2012 could not be extended to the petitioner as the same came into existence after the death of petitioner’s father. Learned counsel for the petitioner endeavored to 3 seek application of Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2012 to the petitioner. 4. The office memorandum dated 04.09.2012 has been placed on record as an Annexure P-7, and reads as under: - “Subject: Appointment of sons/daughters/near relations of a Government servant who dies in harness, leaving his family in Immediate need of assistance. The undersigned is directed to say that the matter regarding simplifying the existing system of providing of employment assistance to the dependents of Govt. servants who die while in Govt. service, leaving their families in indigent circumstances was under consideration of the Govt. for some time past. After careful consideration, it has been decided that the cases of all eligible candidates shall be considered for providing employment assistance in accordance with the provisions of the policy circulated vide O.M. No. Per (AP-II)F (4)-4/89 dated 18.01.1990. It has further been decided by the State Govt. that the employment on compassionate grounds shall also be extended to the dependents of Contract employees who die while in service. Accordingly, the following sub clause (f) below para 2 is inserted in the above-mentioned policy dated 18.01.1990; - (f) A contractual employee who dies while in service leaving his family in immediate need of assistance may be given compassionate employment on daily waged basis.” In terms of above extracted office memorandum, Sub- clause (f) has been inserted in the Compassionate Employment Policy dated 18.01.1990 and as per Sub-clause (f) in case ‘a contractual employee, dies while in service leaving his family in immediate need of assistance, his dependent can be given 4 compassionate employment on daily wage basis.’ Respondents’ refusal to apply this office memorandum to petitioner’s case is not justifiable. The said Office memorandum incorporates Clause (f) (extracted above) in the Parent Policy dated 18.01.1990. Sub-clause (f) has been inserted in the Parent Policy without any restriction or reservation. In the instant case, though petitioner’s father had died on 19.07.2009 but the petitioner admittedly could not have applied before 2020 i.e. before attaining the age of majority. By the time, petitioner became major and applied for compassionate employment, office memorandum dated 04.09.2012 had come into force. It had become part & parcel of the Parent Policy dated 18.01.1990. Sub Clause (f) was inserted in the Parent Policy by the office memorandum dated 04.09.2012 for providing employment on compassion to the eligible dependent of kith & kin of deceased contractual employees. The instant is a case, where the petitioner a minor and his minor sister had lost their parents in close succession. Keeping in view the benevolent object of the employment on compassionate grounds and the consideration of the case above, respondents’ decision of rejecting the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground only on the ground that his father a contractual employee had died prior to incorporation of Sub- clause (f) in the Compassionate Employment Policy dated 18.01.1990, cannot be countenanced. It is accordingly quashed and 5 set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground afresh, in accordance with law and keeping in view the office memorandum dated 04.09.2012, within a period of four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 20th June, 2025(rohit)