2025:HHC:3613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.186 of 2025 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravinder Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate vice Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the facts, which are borne out from the record, there is no necessity for calling reply from the respondents. Accordingly, the matter has been heard at this stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner feels aggrieved against office order dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-9), whereby the respondents 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:3613 in purported compliance to the decision rendered in Ravinder Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2, rejected the claim of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds. 3. CWP No.8509 of 2022 was instituted by the petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the respondents, rejecting his case for compassionate employment. In the aforesaid order, the respondents had rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of his application being time barred. While allowing the writ petition on 02.01.2024, the Hon’ble Court noticed as under:- (i). Petitioner’s father while serving as regular Beldar in the respondent-Department, died in harness on 22.12.2008. Petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, his date of birth being 21.06.1993. (ii). After attaining the age of majority, petitioner applied for compassionate employment on 17.12.2014. The respondents rejected petitioner’s application vide communication dated 24.02.2022, assigning the reason that he had applied after a lapse of more than six years 2 CWP No.8509 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2024 3 2025:HHC:3613 after the death of his father. This reasoning was rejected by the Court with following observations:- “8. Though, it is a matter of record that the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 17.12.2014, i.e. after he had attained the age of 21 years, but this application of the petitioner was not considered and rejected by the Authorities before issuance of the impugned order dated 24.02.2022, on which date appointments on compassionate basis were governed by Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2019. Now in terms of this Office Memorandum, the time limit for submission of application for compassionate appointment as mentioned in Clause­9 reads as under:­ “9) TIME LIMIT FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT: Requests for grant of employment assistance should be received in the Department concerned within four years of the death of the Government servant/retirement on medical grounds as applicable. In case where none of the sons/daughters of the deceased Government servant have attained majority (age of 18 years) at the time of the death of the Government servant, the time limit for receipt of request for employment assistance in department concerned will be attainment of age of 22 years by the eldest son/un­married daughter.” 9. Thus, it is evident from this particular Clause that in a case where the dependent is a minor as on the date when the predecessor­in­interest dies, then such an incumbent can apply for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of 18 years, but before the attaining of the age of 22 years. 10. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Court in N.C. Santhosh vs.State of Karnataka and others, (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 617, has been pleased to hold that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration on the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 11. Thus, in this case because the rejection is dated 24.02.2022 and the same per se is bad in law, the case of the petitioner is liable to be scrutinized and 4 2025:HHC:3613 decided afresh by the Authorities in terms of the norms which were prevailing as on the date when the impugned order was passed while considering the case of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure P­5) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to take a fresh decision on the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Secretary (Finance), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 07.03.2019. Let needful be positively done within a period of two months from today.” 4. In the aforesaid judgment, the respondents were specifically directed to take fresh decision on petitioner’s application seeking appointment on compassionate basis as per the office memorandum dated 07.03.2019. Respondents set out to implement the aforesaid decision, considered the case of the petitioner and vide office order dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-9), once again rejected it. Rejection this time was with the reasoning that “……… the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as per policy dated 07.03.2019………….” The aforesaid reasoning cannot be sustained in view of the mandate given to the respondents in Ravinder Kumar’s2 case, pursuant to which, the respondents have issued the impugned office order. Respondents were to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in light of the directions issued in 5 2025:HHC:3613 Ravinder Kumar’s2 case, i.e. as per office memorandum dated 07.03.2019. From the perusal of the impugned office order, it is but obvious that decision and the directions issued in Ravinder Kumar’s2 case have not been assailed by the respondents any further. Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to urge that petitioner’s case cannot be considered as per office memorandum/policy dated 07.03.2019. The reasoning is fallacious and contrary to the decision in the case of Ravinder Kumar’s2. 5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, present writ petition is allowed. Impugned office order dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with the directions issued in Ravinder Kumar’s2 case. Needful be done by passing appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh