IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9958/2023 Decided on: 23.06.2025 Parveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground second time. Now on the ground that his application seeking employment on compassionate ground was moved beyond the period permissible under the prevailing policy. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Petitioner’s elder brother was serving as Gram Vidya Upasak in the respondent-Education Department. He died in harness on 28.04.2007. Petitioner moved an application for employment on compassionate ground. The same was rejected by the respondents on 15.05.2014 (Annexure A-9) on the ground that petitioner’s brother was not an employee of the State Government. Petitioner instituted Parveen Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 against the rejection of his case for employment on compassionate ground. The said petition was allowed on 28.12.2021. Respondents’ communication dated 15.05.2014 was quashed and set aside with further direction to them to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of the policy, which was prevailing at the time of death of the petitioner’s elder brother and to pass appropriate order within eight weeks. The respondents thereafter considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh on the basis of Policy dated 18.01.1990 prevailing at the relevant time and held as under: - “The brother of the applicant i.e. Late Shri Manoj Kumar was died on 28.04.2007 and the applicant i.e. Shri Parveen Kumar had submitted his application on dated 12.09.2012 for appointment on compassionate grounds after a span of five years from the death of deceased employee despite the fact that Shri Parveen Kumar has attained the age of 21 years in the year 2007 itself. The applicant did not apply for compassionate appointment within the time limit of three years as per prevailing policy issued on 2 CWPOA No. 7995/2019 decided on 28.12.2021 3 18.01.1990 although he was major at the time of death of deceased employee.” The instant petition lays challenge to the aforesaid order, whereby petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground of delay in his applying for employment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for compassionate employment within the permissible limit of three years in terms of policy dated 18.01.1990. He had applied on 09.01.2010. Reference in this regard was made to page-40 of the paper book, wherein a representation/letter dated 09.01.2010 statedly written by the petitioner and addressed to the ‘Department of Elementary Education, Block Primary Education Officer, Nerwa Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla’ has been placed on record. In view of said representation, learned counsel submitted that reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case was factually incorrect. It was also urged that respondents could not take different ground for rejecting petitioner’s representation during reconsideration of his case. 5. The respondents in their reply have not admitted receipt of the aforesaid representation/letter. The petitioner along with his 4 rejoinder has placed on record copy of information supplied to him on 04.07.2024 under the Right to Information Act by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Nerwa District Shimla, which states that the department has looked into its entire record but letter dated 09.01.2010 alleged by the petitioner to have been presented for compassionate appointment was not available in their entire record. It is the stand of the respondents that petitioner had applied for compassionate employment on 12.09.2012 i.e. five years after his brother’s death. The representation/letter dated 09.01.2010 has not been demonstrated to have been moved by the petitioner to the respondents, therefore, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the respondents that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 12.09.2012 i.e. beyond the time limit of three years from the date of attaining the age of majority. The petitioner had admittedly attained the age of 21 years in the year 2007 itself i.e. when his brother had died. The consideration order was passed by the respondents pursuant to the specific direction issued by the Court in petitioner’s previous petition i.e. Parveen Kumar2, to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of prevailing policy. In view of the facts that have emerged, the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. 5 Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 23rd June, 2025(rohit)