IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4683 of 2020 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ankush Shaunik …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate. For the Respondent: 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): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Block Medical Officer, Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-5), whereby an application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment came to be rejected due to exceeding of income criteria, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “a. That the respondents may be directed to appoint/recruit the petitioner under the policy of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compassionate appointment presently applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh; b. That the impugned order dated 04.01.2020 i.e. Annexure P-4 and impugned letter dated 04.02.2020 Annexure P-5 be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be granted employment in lieu of his father’s death, who died in harness.” 2. Facts, relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that the late father of the petitioner was initially engaged as Male Health Worker in the respondent-Department. However, on 20.03.2017 he died, while in service. Being legal heir of deceased employee, petitioner submitted an application in the year 2017, praying therein for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, vide order dated 4.2.2020 afore application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected due to exceeding of income criteria, as prescribed in policies dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019 formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Sneh Bhimta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2017, application filed by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondent- Department in terms of the policy prevalent at the time of death of father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that 3 since prior to promulgation of policy of 2019, which ultimately came to be applied in the case of the petitioner, income criteria was altogether different from the income criteria prescribed in the policy of 2017, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. She states that material changes came to be effected in the policy of appointment on compassionate ground after passing of judgment dated 16.01.2019 by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.988 of 2019 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Shashi Kumar, but before passing of afore judgment, income criteria was not same, which otherwise came to be incorporated in the policy of 2019. She further states that income of the petitioner from all sources is Rs. 50,500/- per annum, whereas respondents, while rejecting the case of the petitioner, considered the income of the petitioner from all sources to be Rs. 4, 61, 172/-, which is factually incorrect. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents, vehemently argued that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while considering the case of the petitioner in terms of policy of 2019. He states that application filed by the petitioner rightly came to be considered in terms of policy of 2019. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, he specifically invited attention of this Court to judgment dated on 12.03.2019 passed by 4 Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2931 of 2019 ( arising out of SLP (Civil) No.1709of 2015) titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sanjay Kumar, to state that as per aforesaid judgment eligibility of a candidate for compassionate appointment must be considered with regard to the limits fixed at the time of such consideration and not on the date, on which application is made. While referring to income certificate issued by the competent authority, learned Additional Advocate General states that income of the petitioner from all sources has been certified as Rs. 4, 61,172/- per annum, which is more than the prescribed limited. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner being legal representative of the deceased employee late Sh. Jai Pal Shaunik submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2017, which came to be rejected vide order dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure P-4). Careful perusal of aforesaid order reveals that the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner in light of policy of 2019, whereas father of the petitioner had expired on 20.03.2017. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in case tilted State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157, has categorically held that application, if any, for the compassionate appointment 5 made by the ward of deceased employee, shall be considered in terms of policy in vogue at the time of death of deceased employee. Apart from above, it has been repeatedly held that in case of compassionate appointment, policy, which was in vogue, on the date when death took place or as on date, when case of person concerned was considered by the Department, should govern the field, so that so far possible, the view which is in favour is of such a person can be taken by the department. 7. No doubt, policy of compassionate appointment formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, if read in its entirety, clearly suggests that same is in continuation of the policy initially formulated in the year 1990, but many amendments came to be made in the same with the passage of time. Income criteria admittedly came to be changed after passing of judgment by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Kumar’s case (supra). Since, it is not in dispute, rather quite apparent from the perusal of impugned order that the application filed by the petitioner came to be decided in terms of policy of 2019, this Court deems it fit not to go into the correctness of the claim put forth by the parties to the lis with regard to actual income of the deceased at the time of making application, rather correctness of the same shall be ascertained by the authority concerned, while considering the case of the petitioner in light of 6 policy, which was prevalent at the time of death of deceased employee. Learned Additional Advocate General states that at the time of death of deceased employee, he had crossed the age of 53 years as such, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 8. No doubt, a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled N.C.Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 after considering earlier judgments ruled that application for compassionate appointment shall be considered on the basis of policy in vogue at the time of consideration of the application, but since it is not in dispute that aforesaid issue stands referred to larger Bench and thereafter, Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Awasthi and Malaya Nanda Sethy’s cases (supra) has held that application for compassionate appointment shall be considered on the basis of policy prevalent at the time death of deceased employee, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) and 04.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner filed in the year, 2018 afresh strictly in terms of policy 7 prevalent at the time of death of deceased employee. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for considerable time, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. It is made clear that this Court, while passing the instant order, has not returned its findings on merits, rather in that view of the matter, respondents shall be at liberty to decide the application afresh, taking note of the para-meters provided in the policy. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 08, 2025 (shankar)