1 2025:HHC:28524 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1226 of 2019 Decided on: 20 th August , 2025 __________________________________________________ State of H.P. and another ....petitioners/non-applicants Versus Ajay Kumar ...respondent/applicant ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP No.16170 of 2025 The present application for early hearing has been filed on the ground that the issue in question pertains to the appointment on compassionate grounds and on account of the matter being admitted, the respondent-applicant is turning overage for appointment. 2. Keeping in view the above, we dispose of the application and take up the main case on board for decision on merits. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No. 1226 of 2019 3. The State is challenging the order of the erstwhile Tribunal whereby OA No.6094 of 2017 titled Ajay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another was allowed on 24.05.2018 and directions were issued to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as a Clerk in terms of the letter dated 22.06.2017 (Annexure A-3), wherein his name figured at Sr. No.5 along with all consequential benefits including seniority as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than two months. Unfortunately, inspite of the fact that there is no stay granted, the State apparently has not acted upon the same and as such the applicant has lost out on the valuable years. 4. The reason as such for issuing directions were that the applicant’s case had been rejected on 17.02.2018 on the ground that a member of his family, his brother, Vinod Kumar was in Government service. This order was not found tenable by the Tribunal on the ground that the brother had separated from joint family as per the certificate dated 31.07.2017, which had been filed before the Tribunal. 5. It is in such circumstances, directions have been given to consider the case of the applicant whose father was working as a Head Constable and died way back on 19.07.2001 3 and the applicant had applied in the year 2002 immediately for compassionate appointment. 6. At no such stage, the State had objected on this ground which would be clear from the averments made in the original application that after applying, he had been asked to get experience of typing on the computer and to submit certain documents, by the State itself, on 20.03.2017. 7. Thereafter apparently on 22.06.2017, his name had been forwarded by the Director General of Police, Shimla, H.P., to the Director Prosecution, Shimla, H.P., for approval of appointment on compassionate ground for the post of Clerk. 8. Vide letter dated 29.06.2017, thirteen people as such had been recommended for the post of Clerk on contract basis for the available posts in Police Department since the Government had conveyed its approval and given its concurrence. Various documents had also been asked and the candidates were asked to appear for the type test in the office of Directorate of Prosecution, Shimla, H.P., vide the said communication. 9. It is the case of the applicant that he had appeared for the type test and had qualified the same and thereafter he had received letter dated 20.07.2017 as to whether any of the 4 legal heirs were in any type of Government job irrespective of the fact that any of them were residing separately or not, so that, action could be taken. 10. Necessary information had then been supplied vide letter dated 22.07.2017, wherein the details as such were given that none of the family members were in Government job except his brother, who was a Class IV employee in Punjab National Bank, Chintpurni and was residing separately as per the Panchayat record and the ration card. It is specifically mentioned that the applicant was looking after his mother who is residing with him and was duly entered in the Pariwar Register and there was no other source of income except of the pension of his mother and the details would show that the daughters of the deceased employee had already been married. 11. Apparently, at that point of time, the order of rejection had not been passed when the original application was filed in the year 2017. The State then for the first time fell back on the order of rejection dated 17.02.2018 after processing the case as such of the applicant which as noticed has been quashed by the Tribunal. No opportunity of hearing had also been given while passing the said order and explanation or justification of the 5 applicant had also not been asked for. 12. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the direction by the Tribunal as such was well justified for considering the case of the applicant as the State itself had proceeded to process the case and admitted the applicant to type test. 13. The State cannot be permitted to put the “Cart before the Horse” and the said information should have been taken at the earliest point of time, whether any person was in Government service or not and if the applicant was eligible then inform the applicant. Having permitted as such to apply and process his case over the year and then not act upon it and only having passed an order of rejection only on account of the pendency of the litigation before the Tribunal would be an arbitrary mode. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference as the learned Tribunal has only directed consideration in view of the fact that petitioner’s name itself figured in the list of the applicants. However, the directions to the State to pay consequential benefits as such would not be justified as it would amount the applicant to a bonus of getting paid for the period he has not worked. Resultantly, we modify that portion of the 6 judgment regarding principle of “no work no pay” keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689, that the Court must take into account the facts in its entirety and pass appropriate orders though there is no absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits could be granted by the Court. Thus if the effect has to be given to the Tribunal’s order would mean the payment of salary for the last 8 years to the applicant which would obviously be at the cost of the exchequer, which this Court is not inclined to grant. 14. Keeping in view the fact that State has already delayed its decision-making, therefore, the needful be done within a period of two months from today. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 20 th August , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge