IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1743 of 2025 in LPA No. 186 of 2026 Decided on: 07.04.2026 _____________________________________________________________ Principal Secretary (Education) and others .Applicants/appellants. Versus Bhanu Prakash .........Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants/appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.1743 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) of 149 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 186 of 2026 2. The State seeks consideration of the judgment dated 19.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2525 of 2021, titled Bhanu Prakash Vs. Principal Secretary (Education) and Ors., whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 03.12.2019 and directed the State to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis by taking into consideration the policy governing appointment on compassionate basis as on the date when the father of the petitioner died on 20.07.2004. 3. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and others Vs. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, (2021) 20 SCC 707 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Asish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157, wherein it has been held that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. -3- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 which was subject matter of challenge, the rejection was only on the basis of another judgment of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, wherein it has been held that the direction to discard the policy could not have been issued by the High Court and the appointment was required to be made as per the prevalent policy and to deal with vexed question as to whether the subsequent policy has to be taken into consideration by the State to the disadvantage of the applicant as the State amends the same and keeps on amending the same from time to time. 5. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the present case the incumbent employee, as such, had died in road accident alongwith his wife on 20.07.2024 leaving behind two minor sons. He was working as a Junior Basic Teacher on regular basis and had rendered almost ten years of service. Thus, it is a peculiar case where the benefit of compassionate appointment had to flow to the applicant but the same was denied on the basis of order dated 03.12.2019 on the ground that the total income of the family of the deceased government employee, -4- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) from all sources, including family pension at the time of consideration by the Department was more than the prescribed income limit. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has directed the reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis, on the basis of the earlier policy which did not have any such clog. 6. In LPA No. 797 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. Vs. Sarita Devi, we have noticed the inconsistent views taken by the Apex Court and eventually followed the Three Judges Bench judgment to conclude that the only consistent factor would be the date of death, as such, and the date of application and the date of consideration of the policy would be different and the differential treatment should not be given to the employees. As noticed, the applicant was a minor at the time of accident and could not be given the compassionate appointment on account of his minority at that point of time. 7. Similar circumstances had arisen in LPA No. 797 of 2025, where, we, while dismissing the appeal of the State have taken a similar view while noticing the contention of the State, keeping in view the judgment in N.C. Santosh vs. State of -5- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) Karnataka and others, (2020) 7 SCC 617, and another three Judges Bench judgment which has taken the contrary view in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496, which was subsequent to the judgment in N.C. Santosh case (supra). The relevant portion of our reasons to take the said view reads as under:- “14. In spite of that the attitude of the State to pursue the litigation continue. The law as such has also been relied upon by the State primarily, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2020) 7 SCC 617, wherein it has been held that consideration should be done as per the policy in force. 15. However, counsel for the respondent has fallen back on another three-Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496, decided on 29.09.2020, subsequent of the judgment of N.C. Santhosh case (supra), which was decided on 04.03.2020. The observations in subsequent judgment as such would go on to show that it is the date of demise which has to be seen, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. The relevant pragraph reads as under:- “16. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. Insofar as providing succour is concerned, unfortunately, since the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect of providing succour to the family immediately does not survive. We have still examined the matter in the conspectus of the applicable policy. It is not in question -6- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) that the Policy prevailing was one dated 18- 8-2008. Clause 12.1 clearly prescribes workcharge/contingency fund and daily wager employees from compassionate appointment. The gravemen of the submission of the respondent is based on the classification of his late father as a permanent employee on account of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent regularisation of his service.” 16. It is also to be noticed that in the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Bheemesh (2021) 20 SCC 707, while taking into consideration the three Judge Bench judgment of N.C. Santhosh case (supra) another two Judge of the Apex Court as such had come to the conclusion that the fixed factor is only the date of death that does not change and therefore on account of the fact that the date of application and the date of consideration of the policy would be different, the differential treatment should not be given to the employees. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- “20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date, namely, the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 government servant dies in harness on 1- 1- 2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5- -7- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) 2020 and 2-6-2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 1-6-2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before 1-6-2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 1-6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.” 17. Faced with this situation, the appellants- State has fallen back on the judgment of a two- Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Abhishek Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 280, to point out that the view in N.C. Santhosh case (supra), was held to be correct. 18. We have gone through the above said judgment in which the judgment in Amit Shrivas case (supra) also of a three-Judge Bench, had been passed, subsequent to the judgment in N.C. Santhosh case (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the said Bench as such. -8- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) 19. It is in such circumstances, keeping in view the law on precedent, we are of the considered opinion that once there is a conflict as such between the two Benches of equal strength of the Apex Court the judgment which lays down the law more elaborately is to be followed. 20. Reference can be made to the judgment of the FullBench in Indo Swiss Time Limited Vs. Umrao and Others AIR 1981 (Punjab & Haryana) 213, wherein it was observed as under:- “23. Now the contention that the latest judgment of a co-ordinate Bench is to be mechanically followed and must have pre- eminence irrespective of any other consideration does not commend itself to me. When judgments of the superior Court are of coequal Benches and therefore of matching authority then their weight inevitably must be considered by the rationale and the logic thereof and not by the mere fortuitous circumstances of the time and date on which they were rendered. It is manifest that when two directly conflicting judgments of the superior Court and of equal authority are extant than both of them cannot be binding on the courts below. Inevitably a choice, though a difficult one, has to be made in such a situation. On principle it appears to me that the High Court must follow the judgment which appears to it to lay down the law more elaborately and accurately. The mere incidence of time whether the judgments of co-equal Benches of the superior Court are earlier or later is a consideration which appears to me as hardly relevant.” 21. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, in such circumstances is well justified and therefore we not only uphhold the same but also quash the order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the Additional Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh during the pendency of the appeal, whereby the rejection had been done as noticed above. -9- ( 2026:HHC:11108 ) 22. It is also pertinent to notice that the same view has been followed by us in LPA No.214 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others Vs. Sh. Radha Mohan, decided on 06.05.2025. 23. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off.” 8. Thus, a consistent view has been followed by us and therefore, we do not see any plausible reason to take a different view from the above mentioned view, since our view is supported by the observations of the Apex Court, that the date of death is one date which remains fixed, whereas the date of consideration and the revised policies will always keep on changing, which can put the employee at a disadvantage, only on account of the delay in consideration in many cases. 9. Resultantly, we dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal, along with other miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S.Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 7th April, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (sushma) Judge