IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3375 of 2022 Date of Decision: 24.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bahadur Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing employment assistance on compassionate grounds as per his academic qualification; (ii) That the respondents be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-6.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that application made by the petitioner for 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compassionate appointment could not have been decided in terms of policy of 2019, especially when it is an admitted fact that father of the petitioner had died in the year 2013. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner’s father late Sh. Dharam Chand, who was working as Beldar with the respondent-department, expired on 28.12.2013 in harness. Petitioner herein being son of aforesaid deceased employee after his having passed matriculation and plus two examinations, applied for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of policy of compassionate appointment formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. On 17.04.2015, case of the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority for taking necessary action, however respondent No.5 returned the case file of the petitioner to respondent No.6 with certain observations and direction to re-submit the case after attending upon the observations. It took almost five years for the respondent- Department to re-submit the case file of the petitioner to the competent authority, as is evident from Annexure R-4 (annexed with the reply filed by the respondents).Vide communication dated 07.08.2020, Assistant Engineer, Panchrukhi, Sub Division, HPPWD Panchrukhi, apprised petitioner herein that he does not 3 fulfill the criteria of income as per Government Policy dated 07.03.2019. 4. Though, an attempt has been made by the respondents to project a case that earlier application filed by the petitioner in the year 2015 was rejected in the year 2015 itself, but there is no explanation that why in the year 2020, second application was entertained. Once application of the petitioner was entertained in the year 2020, same was required to be considered in light of policy prevalent at the time of death of father of the petitioner. It is quite apparent from aforesaid communication dated 07.08.2020 as well as reply filed by the respondents that respondents, while considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, applied policy of 2019, wherein admittedly income criteria has been increased from Rs. 1.25 lakh to Rs. 2.50 lakh. Factum with regard to services rendered by the father of the petitioner in the respondent-Department as well as submission of application for compassionate appointment on two occasions, as detailed hereinabove, has not been disputed and as such, need not to be elaborated upon. 5. In nutshell, issue which deserve to be considered in the instant case is whether application dated 23.07.2020 submitted by the petitioner after attending upon observations 4 raised at the time of rejection of earlier application made in the year 2015 could have been considered by the respondents in terms of policy of 2019 or it ought to have been considered in light of policy prevalent at the time of death of father of the petitioner. 6. By now it is well settled that application for compassionate appointment is required to be decided in terms of policy prevalent at the time of death of a government employee. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 157 alongwith connected matter, relevant paras whereof read as under: “4. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3- 12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. 6. In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it 5 was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 7. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record that respondents have failed to consider case of the petitioner in terms of policy prevalent at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner afresh in terms of policy in vogue at the time of death of his father. 8. Since, it is not in dispute that father of the petitioner died in harness in the year 2013 and at that time policy of 2019 was not in existence, rather at that time policy of 2013 was in vogue, wherein maximum income criteria was fixed at Rs. 1.25 lakh, whereas as per documents adduced on record income of the petitioner at that relevant time was Rs. 99000/-. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.08.2020 (Annexure R-4) is quashed and set aside with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 23.07.2020 afresh in terms of policy prevalent at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this 6 Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in terms of policy in vogue. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 24,2025 (shankar)