IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6542 of 2022 Decided on: 9th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Shivank S. Panta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the respondent- H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited on 12.04.2022. The reason assigned for rejecting his case was that “only the wards of those deceased employees of this Corporation who die while in service are eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. Since, you got voluntarily retired before attaining the age of superannuation from the services of HPTDC hence your son is not covered under the compassionate policy of the Govt. and not eligible 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 for employment on compassionate grounds in the Corporation. However, the Corporation in view of your exceptional family circumstances on humanitarian grounds expresses sympathy with you”. In the aforesaid order impugned by the petitioner herein, the respondents have rejected his case on the grounds that :- (i) Only the wards of those deceased employees of the Corporation would be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds, who die in harness; and (ii) Since the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement, therefore, his son (present petitioner) is not covered under the compassionate policy of the Corporation, hence, not eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. 2. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and considering the case record, it comes out that the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate grounds are factually not tenable. Firstly, the compassionate employment policy as applicable at the relevant time, was not restricted to the wards of employees, who die in harness. It was also applicable to the dependants of those, who took retirement on medical invalidation, as is the case of petitioner’s father herein. Petitioner’s father-Sh. Kartar Singh did not take 3 voluntary retirement. It is an admitted position that on becoming 100% disabled (permanent blindness), he was permitted to retire on medical invalidation on 16.06.2014. Secondly, the reasons projected by the respondents in their reply for not accepting the claim of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds are not ones, on the basis of which, his case has been rejected under the impugned order. The respondents cannot be permitted to urge something in support of the impugned order, which is not borne out therefrom. 3. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds afresh in accordance with law and as per the applicable policy/instructions holding the field at the relevant time. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh