IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5430 of 2023 Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Rajeshwar Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondents vide their communication dated 17.05.2023 rejected compassionate employment assistance case of the petitioner as time-barred. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has taken recourse to these legal proceedings. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner’s case. 3(i). Petitioner’s father was working as Fitter-cum- Mechanic in the respondent-Public Works Department. He died in harness on 05.12.2012. Two months after the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application for 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- appointment on compassionate grounds to respondent No.4. This application dated 04.02.2013 has been appended by the respondents along with their reply as Annexure R-1. 3(ii). It is further case of the petitioner that his aforesaid application dated 04.02.2013 remained under consideration of the respondents; It was in the year 2017 that the respondents advised the petitioner to apply on a laid out format along with requisite documents. Accordingly, the petitioner applied once again for appointment on compassionate grounds on 27.12.2017. 3(iii). Petitioner’s second application dated 27.12.2017 was rejected by the respondents on 20.07.2018 on the ground that the petitioner ought to have applied for employment assistance within three years from the date of death of the Government servant, i.e. by 05.12.2015. Hence, petitioner’s application was rejected being time-barred. 3(iv). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that after the rejection of the petitioner’s application/request for employment on compassionate grounds vide communication dated 20.07.2018, the petitioner traced his first application seeking employment assistance and -3- represented to the respondents on 24.04.2023, inter alia, apprising them that he had in fact applied for compassionate employment on 04.02.2013. That his case could not have been rejected being time-barred. The respondents however refused to oblige and rejected the petitioner’s case once again on 17.05.2023. It is in the aforesaid background that petitioner has moved this writ petition seeking quashing of the orders passed by the respondents rejecting his case for employment on compassionate grounds and also seeking direction to the respondents to employ him accordingly. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the strength of the reply filed by the respondents urged that petitioner had applied with requisite documents only on 27.12.2017, whereas, as per policy framed by the respondent-State Government for providing employment assistance on compassionate grounds, the petitioner should have applied within three years from the date of death of his father. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was justly rejected by the respondents. -4- 5. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and on consideration of the case file, I am not impressed with the reasoning given by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner. As observed earlier, the respondents in their reply have admitted having received the application of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds on 04.02.2013. It is not the defense of the respondents that they had informed the petitioner about inadequacies in his application/non-completion of procedural formalities at any time prior to the year 2017. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents for the first time had directed the petitioner in the year 2017 to furnish fresh application on the requisite format along documents. Respondents have not placed on record any decision/order/communication conveying the petitioner the fate of his application dated 04.02.2013. In the aforesaid circumstances, the factual submissions made for the petitioner that his application dated 04.02.2013 had not been rejected by the respondents and that he was directed by the respondents only in the year 2017 to apply again on format, carry weight. The first -5- application was made by the petitioner within two months from the date of death of his father. Respondents’ rejection of the case of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, on the ground that the petitioner had moved application only on 27.12.2017, hence, barred by limitation of three years, cannot be sustained. 7. In view of above, impugned orders/decisions dated 20.07.2018 (Annexure P-4), 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) and 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-8) are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground afresh on its merit in accordance with law within six weeks. The order so passed be also 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 27th February, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)