2025:HHC:29130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14363 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Virender Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-18) passed by the respondent No. 3 -Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (H.P.) may kindly be quashed and set-aside being arbitrary, illegal, full of contradictions, discriminatory and violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court(s) in numerous cases as well as policy framed by the Govt. of HP with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds, by issuing writ Certiorari; (ii) That the respondents/ competent authority may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds by taking into consideration the actual annual family income of the petitioner 2025:HHC:29130 - 2 - to the extent of Rs.1,25,000/- which income was submitted to the respondent-department by the petitioner at the time of applying for compassionate appointment, strictly in light of the latest judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWPOA No. 7821/2019 titled as Jaswinder Singh vs. State of HP & others. Therefore, the annual fresh income as supplied by the DTO, Mandi-respondent No. 5 for the year 2023-24 to the respondent No. 4 without consent and permission of the family pension holder, Smt. Meena Devi (mother of the petitioner), on the basis of which, claim of the petitioner has been rejected, may kindly be held to be wrong, illegal and null & void; resultantly, the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for his appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the instructions of the Finance Department, dated 18.07.2014, by issuing writ of Mandamus; (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against a suitable post of Class-IV on compassionate grounds keeping in view his academic qualification & driving skills in accordance with the compassionate policy or in the alternative, the benefits of the judgment dated 08.02.2019 delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158-16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc. Etc., may kindly be extended in favour of the petitioner from due date i.e; when the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was found complete in all respects in the year 2015, with all consequential benefits including seniority, as the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 15.06.2013 but delay in not appointing him has occurred on the part of the respondents, and justice be done. (iv) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears to the 2025:HHC:29130 - 3 - petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, flowing out of deemed appointment of the petitioner from due date, which may kindly be reckoned, when the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment was found complete in all respects, in the year 2015, as is evident from Annex. P-18 dated 16.10.2024 & justice be done.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that father of the petitioner, who was serving the respondent department as Beldar, died in harness on 3.11.2012. Petitioner being Legal Heir of the aforesaid deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment on 15.6.2013, in terms of policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner despite repeated requests, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6030 of 2023, titled Virender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 5.9.2023 (Annexure P-13), whereby direction came to be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the case of the petitioner within four weeks. In the afore background, respondents vide office order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-18), proceeded to decide the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Since income of the petitioner was found to be more than prescribed limits, his prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected vide afore order dated 18.8.2024. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant 2025:HHC:29130 - 4 - proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents wrongly applied the policy of 2009 and 2019, while deciding case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, who admittedly had become eligible for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in 2012/2013. While referring to income certificate (Annexure P-5) issued by the Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Dogra, states that since income of the petitioner was not more than Rs.1,25,000/-, per annum, coupled with the fact that policy in vogue at the time of death of father of the petitioner, also provided for maximum income of Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground of income criteria. 4. While refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, specifically referred to reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4 filed under the signature of Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti, Sundernagar, to state that case of the petitioner was considered strictly in terms of the policy in vogue, at the time of death of father of the petitioner, but since petitioner exceeded income 2025:HHC:29130 - 5 - criteria, he was rightly not considered for compassionate appointment in the year 2015, which thereafter was considered as per revised policy of 7.3.2019 (Annexure R-II) read with OM dated 1.11.2019 (Annexure R-III) and it was found that the annual family income of the petitioner exceeded the income criteria, therefore, he was found not eligible and rejection of his case was conveyed to the petitioner. While referring to judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617, Mr. Rajan Kahol, submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore judgment has held that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. Since petitioner submitted his application in the year 2015, enclosing therewith income certificate and Legal Heir certificate, same rightly came to be considered in light of policy in vogue at the relevant time. He further submitted that deceased employee had three members i.e. wife, son and married daughter. Total income of the deceased family was given Rs.1,25,000/- as per income certificate dated 10.2.2015 issued by the Executive Magistrate Kotli, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, therefore, in 2015, total annual family income as per certificate submitted by the petitioner late Sh. Virender Kumar i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/- was exceeding the limit of two members family (Rs. 31,250/- per person). Even the family size if considered to be three members, income of Rs.1,25,000/- would cross the limit of Rs. 2025:HHC:29130 - 6 - 93,750/- (by taking individual income @ Rs. 31,250/-) on the basis of Government/Finance Department Instructions issued in August 2013. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though father of the petitioner had died in 2012, but petitioner herein had submitted application in the year 2015, not in the year 2013 as has been claimed in the petition. Policy of 2009, firstly came to be amended in the year 2019. In 2009 Policy, minimum income criteria, was Rs.1,25,000/- per annum, for a family of four persons. Though learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly attempted to argue that case of the petitioner was wrongly considered in light of Policy of 2019, but this court is not persuaded to agree with him for the reason that though in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh (supra), policy, at the time of submission of application, shall be applicable, but even, if it is presumed that policy in vogue at the time of death of deceased employee was to be taken into consideration, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioner because even in the year 2015, policy of 2009, which ultimately came to be amended in the year 2019, was applicable in the case of the petitioner. No doubt, income certificate submitted by the petitioner reveals that at the time of death of the deceased employee, annual income of the family of the deceased employee was Rs.1,25,000/- and such, income certificate was qua the family of three persons i.e. wife 2025:HHC:29130 - 7 - son and daughter. Since daughter of the deceased employee stood married prior to his death, family of only two members can be said to have been left after death of the deceased employee. Since as per annual income as certified by the Executive Magistrate, Rs. 1,25,0000/- was to be considered the income of four persons, which comes individually to be Rs.31,250/- per person, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while concluding that income of the petitioner is more than the prescribed limit because now income of Rs. 1,25,000/- can be said to be of two persons i.e. mother and son, which is definitely more than Rs.62,500/- i.e. 31250/- per person. Even if the married daughter is also included in the family, three members of the family would cross the limit of Rs.93,750/-, by taking individual income as Rs 31,250/-. For a family of four, income has been fixed as Rs.1,25,000/-, but in the case at hand, family of three including married daughter has crossed the limit of Rs. 93,750/-, which is admittedly beyond prescribed limit. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present petition fails and dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. August 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge