1 ( 2025:HHC:42047 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8522 of 2024 Decided on: 05.12.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gagan 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. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General for respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the rejection of his case for employment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner’s father Shri Amar Singh was serving as regular Beldar in the respondents- Public Works Department. He died in harness on 11.01.2019. The same year petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Beldar 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:42047 ) on compassionate grounds. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s case on 24.08.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was only 5th standard pass whereas under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Beldar, minimum educational qualification prescribed is middle pass. The petitioner thereafter improved his educational qualification, passed 8th standard on 15.6.2021 and applied once again for employment on compassionate grounds. Hearing no response from the respondents, Gagan Kumar versus State of H.P and others2 was instituted by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the second application moved by the petitioner for compassionate employment in accordance with law. Relevant portion from the decision reads as under:- “4. Case of the petitioner as submitted by learned counsel is that the petitioner, being son of late Sh. Amer Singh had applied for compassionate employment but his case was turned down by the Departmental Screening Committee on 24.8.2020, which was conveyed to him on 16.11.2022, Annexure P-4, on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfills the requisite educational qualifications of Middle Class as prescribed in the R & P Rules for the post of Beldar. 5. Notably, after the rejection of his case by the Departmental Screening Committee on 24.8.2020, the petitioner has acquired the requisite qualification of Middle Class on 15.6.2021, Annexure P-3. 2CWP No.2115 /2023, decided on 21.12.2023. 3 ( 2025:HHC:42047 ) 6. After having acquired the Educational Qualification of Middle, the petitioner had applied for compassionate employment, as per Annexure P-2, afresh but, the case is still pending consideration, with the respondents. 7. Per Contra, Mr. Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits that, in case, the application for compassionate employment submitted in November, 2020, Annexure P-2, is pending, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with the existing policy of compassionate employment within three months from today and the decision so taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner also. Ordered accordingly.” The respondents once again rejected the case of the petitioner on 26.04.2024 with the reasoning that his case had already been rejected by them, hence, it would not be appropriate to consider his case afresh. In the above backdrop, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 4. Firstly, it has to be noticed that while deciding Gagan Kumar,2 the Court had already taken cognizance of the fact that respondents had previously turned down petitioner’s case of employment on compassionate grounds on 24.08.2020 on the ground of petitioner not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification of middle class. Since the petitioner had acquired qualification of middle class after the rejection of his case, the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 4 ( 2025:HHC:42047 ) respondents declining to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground of same having been already rejected was not proper. The said order practically borders to breach of directions issued in Gagan Kumar.2 Secondly, it has not been disputed by the respondents that petitioner’s application for employment on compassionate grounds was rejected on 24.08.2020 only on the ground of his being 5th standard pass against the requirement of middle pass. Admittedly, application for employment on compassionate grounds could have been submitted under the applicable policy within three years from the date of death of bread- earner/employee. Petitioner’s second application submitted in the year 2021 for seeking employment on compassionate grounds after becoming middle pass, was admittedly within this period of three years. Hence, instead of rejecting the case of the petitioner, respondents ought to have considered the application on its own merit by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law and applicable policy keeping in view the object of policy which is to provide succor to the needy and indigent families. 5. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned office order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set-aside with direction to respondent 5 ( 2025:HHC:42047 ) No.2/Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds afresh, on merits, in accordance with law by treating the same to have been instituted within limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 05, 2025 Judge yogesh