IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10953 of 2023 Date of Decision: 11.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Nishant Kumar …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, 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): Instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to order dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure P-17) as well as rejection orders dated 14.08.2023/ 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-22), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined on the ground that he exceeds the income criteria as prescribed in the policy for appointment on compassionate ground formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh prevalent at the time of making application by the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that father of the petitioner, namely late Sh. Ram Singh, who was serving as Junior Basic Teacher with the Education Department expired on 27.07.2004 while in service. Since there was none to support the family, mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Though, in terms of policy in vogue at the relevant time, mother of the petitioner was offered appointment in the year, 2009, but same was declined by her on the ground that she is not keeping good health. Though, repeatedly mother of the petitioner requested the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner in her place, but since at the relevant time, petitioner was not major, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was not considered. In the year 2010, petitioner herein after having attained the age of majority made an application to the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground, but same was rejected on the ground that petitioner’s claim does not fall under the policy framed by the Government for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by the respondents, petitioner preferred Original Application bearing No.6881 of 2016 before erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, which ultimately came to be transferred to this Court and re- registered as CWPOA No.3137 of 2019. Learned Single Judge of this 3 Court taking note of the reply filed by the respondents as well as policy prevalent at the time of making application, proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, petitioner herein filed LPA No.6 of 2020, which came to be disposed of by Principal Division Bench of this Court in following terms:- “Thus, the Letter Patent Appeal is allowed, the office order dated 3.6.2011, Annexure A-12, as well as the Judgment dated 16.12.2019, passed by Ld. Single Judge in CWPOA No.3137 of 2019 is set aside, and the concerned respondent is directed to decide, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within three months from today, in the light of the policy for compassionate appointments in force at the time when the appellant-petitioner Nishant Kumar, had applied for employment on compassionate grounds. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.” 5. Principal Division Bench of this Court vide afore judgment directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner herein for compassionate appointment in light of the policy for compassionate appointments in force at the time when the appellant- petitioner had applied for employment on compassionate grounds. In terms of aforesaid direction issued by Principal Division Bench of this Court, case of the petitioner again came to be considered by the 4 respondents, but vide impugned order dated 14th August, 2023 (Annexure P-22) claim of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of income criteria. Perusal of aforesaid impugned order reveals that at the time of making application in the year 2010, deceased employee had four legal heirs i.e. applicant/ applicant’s grandmother, mother and younger sister. Committee after having perused the income certificate issued by the SDM, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on 21.01.2010, wherein total income of the petitioner was shown as Rs. 1, 15,904/- per annum, proceeded to record that petitioner exceeds the income criteria. In terms of policy prevalent at the time of making application by the petitioner in the year 2010, there was ceiling of Rs. 1 lakh, whereas income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 1 lakh. Besides above, it also transpired that SDM, Arki, while issuing income certificate failed to take note of income of mother of the petitioner, who admittedly was in the receipt of family pension. If the annual income of the petitioner as certified by SDM, Arki i.e. Rs. 1,15,904/- is taken into consideration vis-a vis income criteria prescribed in the policy prevalent at the time of making application by the petitioner, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned order. 6. Though, at this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that the case of the petitioner ought to 5 have been considered by the respondents in terms of policy prevalent at the time of death of his father i.e. 2004, but once it is not in dispute that in the year 2004, petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment on account of his being minor, afore plea made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves outright rejection. 7. 7. No doubt, in terms of settled law application for compassionate appointment is required to be considered on the basis of policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased employee, but in the instant case application made by mother of the petitioner after the death of her husband was duly considered in light of policy prevalent at that time and she was also offered appointment, which was not accepted. First application made by the mother of the petitioner in the year, 2004 was duly considered in terms of policy prevalent at the time of death of her husband. Since at the relevant time, income of mother of the petitioner was found to be less than the income ceiling provided in the policy in vogue, mother of the petitioner was offered appointment, which she refused to accept on health grounds. Since petitioner became eligible for appointment in the year, 2010 and for the first time, he made application in the year, 2010 for compassionate appointment, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent, while considering the case of the petitioner in light of the policy prevalent in the year, 2010. 6 8. Moreover, Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the LPA filed by the petitioner, itself directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of policy prevalent at the time of making application by the petitioner. Since, it is not in dispute that in the policy of 2010 provision with regard to minimum income came to be incorporated by way of an amendment, coupled with the fact that petitioner had income more than prescribed criteria, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned order, which otherwise appears to be passed on the basis of policy in vogue at the time of making application by the petitioner. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 11,2025 (shankar)