( 2025:HHC:6443 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1806/2025 Decided on: 18.03.2025 Sapna …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner was employed as a Clerk on compassionate ground on daily wage basis on 12.10.2017. She has instituted this writ petition primarily with the prayer that she was required to be appointed on compassionate ground on regular basis right from 12.10.2017. On that basis she has prayed for all consequential benefits including arrears, seniority, pension and promotion etc. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that:- 2(i) Petitioner’s husband late Sh. Rajinder Kumar was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on contract basis in the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:6443 ) respondent-department on 06.03.2012. His services were later on regularized. Petitioner’s husband died in harness on 24.01.2015. 2(ii) Petitioner was appointed by the respondent-department on compassionate ground vide office letter dated 12.10.2017 as a Clerk. She joined as such on the said date itself. Petitioner services were regularized under office order dated 02.04.2022 from prospective effect. Petitioner’s grievance is that she should have been offered compassionate employment on regular basis as Clerk under office order dated 12.10.2017 instead of daily wage basis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with Rule 10 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P Rules) for the post of Clerk, the petitioner was required to be appointed either on regular or on contract basis, whereas the petitioner had been wrongly appointed on daily wage basis by the respondents. As per R&P Rules, 70% of the posts of Clerk are required to be filled up by direct recruitment on regular/contract basis. Petitioner’s employment on compassionate ground falls under the direct recruitment, therefore, her employment on daily wage basis is against the right to equality as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The contentions of the petitioner are misplaced in the given factual position of the case. 3 ( 2025:HHC:6443 ) 4(i) Admittedly the respondents had offered employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground against the post of Clerk on daily wage basis on 12.10.2017. Petitioner accepted the offer without raising any demur or protest. In fact, she joined the respondent- department as a Clerk on compassionate ground, the very day, she was offered the appointment. It is also not the case of the petitioner that she accepted the appointment under any protest. Petitioner’s claim for contractual/regular appointment, is now barred by principles of acquiescence & estoppel. 4(ii) Petitioner continued serving as a Clerk on daily wage basis on her employment as such on compassionate ground from 12.10.2017 onwards. Her services were regularized on 02.04.2022. Petitioner accepted this order as well. In fact, it is the pleaded case that first representation, petitioner ever moved with the prayer for employing her on contractual/regular basis w.e.f. her initial date of compassionate appointment on daily wage basis was on 04.10.2024. Petitioner has not explained the delay & laches in seeking the relief. 4(iii) In this regard, it would also be pertinent to refer to Surinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Others2. Some of the points framed therein for adjudication, which are relevant for decision of present petition, read as under:- 2CWP No. 9094/2013 with connected matters decided on 06.10.2015 4 ( 2025:HHC:6443 ) “Points No.(iv): Whether the applicant can claim appointment on compassionate ground against a higher cadre, once he had been appointed in the lower cadre? Point No.(v): In case a person is appointed on contract basis, whether he is within his rights to seek appointment on regular basis? Point No.(vi): In a given set of cases, in one case the appointment on compassionate ground has been offered against a Class-III post and in other case, the appointment has been offered to a Class-IV post, whether it amounts to discrimination?” While deciding the above points, it was inter-alia held as under by the Court:- “76. The discretion to offer appointment on compassionate ground is vested with the respondents/Authorities and it is for the said Authorities to see whether a person is to be appointed against a Class-IV or Class-III post or on daily wage basis and that discretion cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination, and that too, when a person has accepted the offer of appointment and joined without any demur and enjoyed the benefits. However, there is also no quarrel about the proposition that the Authority, who is vested with the discretion of making appointment on compassionate ground, is expected to exercise the discretion vested in it judiciously and without being influenced, strictly in accordance with the provisions envisaged in the Policy, so that the avowed object sought to be achieved by the State, by framing such a policy, is achieved. 77. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the incumbents, who have been appointed on a particular post and have joined to the said post without expressing any reluctance or protest, such incumbents are precluded from claiming that they should either be appointed to a higher post or should have been given appointment on regular basis, instead of employment on contract basis, or have been discriminated viz. a viz. similarly paced persons.” 5 ( 2025:HHC:6443 ) The above observations are applicable to the facts of instant case. Petitioner had accepted the given offer of compassionate appointment and joined as Clerk on daily wage basis on 12.10.2017 without any demur and enjoyed the benefits over period of more than seven years. At this stage, she is precluded from claiming that she should have been given appointment on regular/contractual basis instead of daily wage basis or that she has been discriminated viz-a-viz similarly placed persons. 4(iv) Learned counsel’s next contention that there is no provision in the applicable R&P Rules for employment on daily wage basis and for that reason alone, petitioner was required to be appointed on compassionate grounds either on contract basis or on regular basis, is not tenable. It is well settled that compassionate employment can not be claimed as a matter of right. This provision has been carved out, against the general rule of equality in matter of public employment, in order to ameliorate the hardship of a family. The compassionate employment is an exception and the person is given appointment without undergoing any selection process. Only the persons, who are directly appointed have to undergo the selection process as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and therefore they are appointed either on regular or contract basis (reference Surender Kumar’s2 case). It is not the case of the petitioner that she had 6 ( 2025:HHC:6443 ) participated in the regular selection process undertaken by the respondents as per applicable R&P Rules. It is the pleaded case that petitioner had been appointed on 12.10.2017 as a Clerk on daily wage basis on compassionate ground in terms of compassionate appointment policy, therefore, her contention that since the R&P Rules did not envisage employment on daily wage basis, therefore, she could not have been employed on compassionate ground on daily wage basis, cannot be accepted. Petitioner’s appointment was a concession and not a right. Petitioner was offered compassionate appointment under the applicable scheme & not by application of R&P Rules. No provision from the applicable compassionate appointment scheme was shown for the petitioner that could lend support to her claim, which as observed earlier not only suffers from delay & laches but is also barred by principles of estoppel & acquiescence. 5. No other point was urged. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th March, 2025(rohit)