2025:HHC:27091 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.175 of 2025 Decided on: 07.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited ....Appellants Versus Prem Sagar ….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Ms. Aastha Kohli, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Upadhyay, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3541 of 2019, titled as Prem Sagar Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. whereby the petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein was allowed on 04.10.2024. The learned Single Judge, while 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:27091 - 2 - modifying the order dated 20.09.2016 [Annexure P-7], vide which the writ petitioner had been offered appointment to the post of Peon, directed that offer be given for the post of Clerk w.e.f. the said date, with all consequential benefits, i.e. seniority, increments etc. but restricted monetary benefits to be paid to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. 2. The reasoning that weighed with the learned Single Judge for granting appointment to the post of Clerk, on compassionate grounds, was that on the same day, Deepak, son of Late Ashwani Kumar was also appointed as Clerk on compassionate grounds and was thereafter posted vide order dated 03.10.2016 in the office of Director of North Zone, Forest Development Corporation at Dharamshala. The Court noted that 21 persons had been appointed, as per the information obtained under Right to Information as depicted in Annexure P-8 and denial of a similar benefit to the writ petitioner was found to be unjustified. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had himself applied for compassionate appointment 2025:HHC:27091 - 3 - on 09.05.2007, after his father had died on 22.01.2016. 3. A reference was made to Annexure P-6 to indicate that one Anup Kumar, son of Gyan Chand, Deputy Ranger, had applied on 06.05.2015 and had been recommended for the benefit of appointment to the post of Clerk. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner’s application was pending from much earlier date, it was held that denial of appointment to the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds was not justified and since the writ petitioner’s father had died on 22.01.2006 and he had been litigating constantly. The defence of non- availability of post of Clerk was rejected and necessary directions were accordingly issued. 4. Apparently, learned Single Judge found the action of the appellant-Corporation arbitrary to the extent that persons who had applied at a later point of time had been granted the benefit of higher post of Clerk, whereas, the writ petitioner, who had applied earlier, was relegated to the post of Peon 2025:HHC:27091 - 4 - (a Class-IV post). 5. On 8th July, 2025 taking cue from the order/judgment under consideration, we had recorded the following observations: “A perusal of Annexure P-9 dated 03.10.2016 would go on to show that one Deepak S/o late Sh. Ashwani Kumar was given appointment as Clerk on contract basis on compassionate grounds. 2. Counsel for the appellant shall file an affidavit as to when the application was given by the said person, since admittedly the learned Single Judge in paragraph 12 has referred to three persons, who were appointed as Clerks and date(s) of applications of other two are 12.04.2002 (Jagdish kumar) and 16.02.2004 (Nirjala Devi), whereas the date of application of the Writ petitioner is 09.05.2007. 3. The necessary affidavit be filed regarding this aspect by 16.07.2025.” 6. Today i.e., 07.08.2025, the necessary affidavit has been filed, which rather exposes the case of the appellant-Corporation. We are only referring to one example, which we wish to highlight. One Ashwani Kumar, was working as a Timber Watcher in Himkashth Sale Depot, Nurpur, died on 27.03.2003, though earlier than the writ petitioner’s father. 2025:HHC:27091 - 5 - Apparently, one of his dependents, namely, Suraj Dhiman, submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 05.08.2003 [Annexure A-2]. Thereafter after 10 years on 08.12.2013, he submitted an affidavit that the appointment be given to his younger brother, Deepak Dhiman and he does not want job on compassionate grounds. The same reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT I Suraj Dhiman aged 29 years S/o late Sh. Ashwani Kumar R/o VPO Jawali, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra H.P, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under:- 1. That I, am bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh. 2. That my father was doing job in the H.P. State Forest Corporation and was posted at Nurpur, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. 3. That my father namely Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Nihal Chand R/o VPO Jawali, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra H.P. has been expired on 27-03-2003 while in service. 4. That I am one of the legal heirs of my deceased father namely Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar. 5. That I do not want to have service on compassionate grounds. 6. That I have no objection if the job be given to my younger brother namely Sh. Deepak Dhiman on compassionate grounds. 2025:HHC:27091 - 6 - 7. That at present I am not employee of any State Govt./Central Govt./ Autonomous Body/Board/Corporation etc.” 7. In pursuance of the same, the application was duly processed and an order was passed on 14.01.2024, wherein, documents submitted by Deepak Dhiman, were accepted. 8. It is not disputed that Deepak Dhiman, as noticed earlier, was appointed vide order of even date, i.e. 20.09.2016, the same date when the writ petitioner was appointed and thus effectively usurped the seat of the petitioner, who had applied much earlier, which was apparently done for his convenience by the officials of the appellant- Corporation, by substituting him against his brother’s application. 9. We fail to understand that how the said person could have been granted the benefit of compassionate appointment in lieu of his brother, who had applied and how his brother could have stood in the queue since apparently from the records, it shows that the person appointed was only 13 years 2025:HHC:27091 - 7 - old at the time of death of his father, having been born on 30.01.1990 was not a major. Thus, the manner in which the appellant-Corporation has appointed the person on compassionate ground, subject to their convenience, needs to be looked into. 10. It is in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner, having waited patiently for his turn and having applied on 09.05.2007, could not have been denied the right on 20.09.2016 by offering the post of Clerk to a person who had not even applied and was a minor at time of his father’s death. 11. Apparently, Suraj Dhiman, elder son of Ashwani Kumar, had only blocked the seat and was not a needy person to be appointed, as he submitted an affidavit requesting that his younger brother be appointed in his place and that he was not interested in the job on compassionate grounds. The whole purpose of compassionate appointment gets diluted when instead of addressing the actual financial distress, it is used to accommodate someone else at 2025:HHC:27091 - 8 - convenience, such as the elder sibling stepping aside to allow the younger sibling to replace him. This practice militates against the very object of the scheme, which is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family in need. Apparently, the family was well-placed to the extent that Suraj Dhiman himself could opt out of the need for Government employment and instead propose his brother, thereby, defeating the core purpose of the compassionate appointment policy. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge, on the arbitrary action of the appellant-Corporation are further cemented by us on account of additional information received by way of affidavits. 13. Thus there is no plausible reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, who, while exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has reached out to grant justice to a person who while waiting for his 2025:HHC:27091 - 9 - due turn was deprived of his rights of appointment to the post of the Clerk by offering him a Class-IV post and taking the plea that there was no vacancy. The defence taken by the appellant-Corporation that there was no vacancy, as such, thus, all would go on to show that it was all done to accommodate certain set of individuals. 14. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal. However, we refrain from imposing costs. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 07, 2025 [Bhardwaj]