IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2849 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vikas Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved by communication dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P-7), issued by Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, HPPWD, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground, came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not meet the income criteria as per the instructions dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though as per Policy dated 07.03.2019 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, annual income ceiling is Rs. 2,50,000/- for a family of four or more dependents with individual income of Rs. 62,500/- per annum, but yet respondents, without there being application of mind, rejected the case of the petitioner, who at the relevant time was having annual income of Rs. 2,18,210/- from all sources, which fact is otherwise evident from the reply filed by the respondents. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that father of the petitioner died in harness on 05.05.2017, while working as Beldar. On 22.07.2019, petitioner, being legal heir of deceased employee, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, two years after filing of the application, as detailed herein above, respondents, vide communication dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P-9), communicated to the petitioner that he does not meet the income criteria as prescribed in instructions dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019 (2019). In aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinbelow:- 3 “(i) That impugned Annexures P-8 & P-9 may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider and offer appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.” 4. If the reply filed by the respondents is read in its entirety, there is no dispute that on account of death of his father, petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also not in dispute that in year 2019, petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, which prayer of him ultimately came to be rejected, vide communication dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P-9). Though an attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he does not meet income criteria, but such plea taken by the respondents appears to be totally contradictory to the Policy dated 07.03.2019, which clearly stipulates that for a family of four or more, annual income ceiling is Rs. 2,50,000/-, whereas in the case at hand, as per documents annexed by the petitioner, while filing application dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-4), also annexed the Income Certificate issued by the Tehsildar of the area concerned, who certified the income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,18,210/-. As per aforesaid certificate, total annual income of the family of deceased late Mr.Ram Lal, S/o Mr. Roshan Lal, including petitioner Mr. Vikas Kumar was less than Rs. 4 2,50,000/-. Since respondents themselves admitted in their reply that as per Annexure P-4, annual family income of the petitioner was assessed as Rs. 2,18,210/- from all sources, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to conclude that income of the petitioner is more than prescribed limit. 5. Interestingly, the respondents, while rejecting the case of the petitioner, have concluded that the petitioner’s income of Rs. 2,18,210/- does not reflect any indigent condition of the family of deceased Government servant and as such, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for providing appointment is not tenable. Once the respondents themselves, vide Policy dated 07.03.2019, have fixed the annual ceiling limit of Rs. 2,50,000/- for a family of four or more dependents with individual income of Rs. 62,500/-, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to reject the case of the petitioner, especially when it is not in dispute that at the time of consideration of the application filed by the petitioner, his income was less than Rs. 2,50,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,18,210/-. 6. True it is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather same can be considered strictly in terms of Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee, however, in the case at hand, there is no consideration. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, 5 learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that present petition deserves to be dismissed for the reason that rejection of the case of the petitioner was communicated to him in the year 2021, but present petition has been filed on 24.12.2024. 7. However, having taken note of Clause 9 of Revised Policy for providing compassionate employment to the eligible dependents of the deceased employee(s) of the State Government, this Court finds that 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. Admittedly, in the case at hand, request for grant of employment assistance was received by the department well within a period of two years and thereafter, department slept over the matter for more than two years. Though the application for employment on compassionate ground was filed in year 2019, but same came to be rejected in year 2021. 8. Moreover, if object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules is to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. Once the department itself slept over the matter for more than two years, it is otherwise estopped from raising plea of delay and laches. Reliance 6 in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa and others, 2024 (15) SCC 766, wherein it has been held as under:- “If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policy or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to be frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned communications dated 12.01.2021 and 30.07.2021 (Annexures P-8 & P-9) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as provision contained in the Policy, especially with regard to maximum annual ceiling income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim since long, this court hopes and trusts that needful, in terms of 7 instant order, shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (Sunil)