IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7043 of 2023 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Virender Singh Rathour, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Virender Singh Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though name of the petitioner stands duly recommended by the Committee for appointment on compassionate grounds, but yet he is not being offered appointment, as a result thereof, great prejudice is being caused to the petitioner. The father of the petitioner late Sh. Shyama Nand, who was working as Beldar in Jal Shakti Vibhag, unfortunately died in harness on 20.11.2011, leaving behind his widow and son 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (present petitioner). As per the policy governing compassionate employment, the first right to get compassionate employment, if admissible is of the widow, who in the present case is Smt. Nirmala Devi, wife of late Sh. Shyama Nand (deceased employee). However, she voluntarily waived of her right to seek such appointment by executing an affidavit, wherein she furnished her “No Objection” in favour of her son, Ravinder Kumar, petitioner herein. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of Clerk (Class-III) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Rampur (respondent No.5), along with the requisite testimonials. The said application was duly scrutinized by respondent No.5 and subsequently forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Reckong Peo (respondent No.4), who, upon examining the case, further referred it to the office of the Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Shimla. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer (South Zone) forwarded the case to the Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Shimla (respondent No.2).The Committee constituted to consider the cases of employment on compassionate grounds under the chairmanship of respondent No.2, considered the case of the petitioner alongwith other applicants. Since petitioner was found eligible for offering appointment on compassionate ground, his name was accordingly 3 included in the seniority list as per provisions of Clause 11(a) of the policy. The name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No.60 for the post of Clerk, as per proceedings of the committee meeting (Annexure R- II). However, petitioner submitted his willingness to respondent No.5 on 08.02.2022, expressing his preference for appointment to the post of Class-IV instead of Class-III (Annexure R-III). Thereafter, respondent-Department further convened a meeting on 29.04.2023, wherein the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.75 for the post of Beldar (Annexure R-IV). 2. Reply filed by the respondents shows that after the meeting held on 29.04.2023, approval for providing employment on compassionate grounds for the post of Beldar under 5% quota of direct recruitment earmarked for compassionate appointment, based on seniority determined by the date of death of the deceased employee was received from the government. Said approval pertains to eligible candidates for Class-IV posts, in whose case either of parents died in harness during the year 2009, but in the case of petitioner his father expired on 20.11.2011. It is further averred in the reply filed by the respondents that respondent-Department will provide employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner as per his turn in the seniority list, subject to the availability of posts. 4 3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that since petitioner had submitted his application in the year 2012, coupled with the fact that one person junior to him, namely Hem Chand, has been offered appointment on compassionate grounds, appointment of the petitioner ought not to be delayed, especially when he has already been found eligible by the Committee. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner has been found eligible for being offered appointed on compassionate grounds, but since a number of persons are ranking higher in the list prepared by the Department on the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee for appointment on compassionate grounds, and appointments to such persons are yet to be made, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents in not recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment till date. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court finds that name of the petitioner stands recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds by the Committee, but since his name figures at Sr. No.75 of the list prepared for Class-IV employees and till date, appointments have been given to those candidates, whose parents died in harness during the year 2009. As per reply filed by the respondents, as and 5 when turn of the petitioner comes, he will be given appointment as per recommendations made by the Committee. 6. Careful perusal of instructions dated 21.09.2024, placed on record by the respondents, reveals that case of the petitioner cannot be compared with the case of Hem Chand, son of late Sh. Jawala Dass, because afore person had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the Department of Horticulture. Hem Chand, son of late Sh. Jawala Dass, had applied for the post of Peon (Class-IV category), for which the seniority/waiting list is maintained separately in the Department of Horticulture. Similarly, the case of Sh. Kedar Singh, son of late Sh. Mani Ram, does not pertain to Department of Jal Shakti Vibhag, rather same pertains to Horticulture Department. Since the seniority list, based on the recommendation made by the Committee, is maintained separately in each Department and the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 75 in the list prepared by the Department of Jal Shakti Vibhag, coupled with the fact that there is nothing to suggest that any person junior to petitioner, if any, has been offered appointment on compassionate grounds, no action of the respondents at this stage can be held to be unlawful. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to ensure that, as and when the 6 turn of the petitioner comes for appointment in terms of recommendation made by the Committee, he shall be offered appointment in accordance with recommendation of the Committee. Since petitioner is likely to become overage for appointment, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, so that rightful claim of the petitioner is not defeated for no fault of him. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05, 2025 (shankar)