IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19774 of 2025 Decided on: 16th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjeev 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. Anil Bansal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner, aged 42 years, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for employment on compassionate grounds as Class-IV employee and to give him appointment accordingly with all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner’s mother-Smt. Asha Devi was appointed as Trained Dai (Class-IV) on regular basis in the year 1997 in the respondent-Health Department. She died in harness on 27.02.2010 as Class-IV employee. Petitioner applied for employment on compassionate grounds in 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 September, 2010. Respondents returned the case of the petitioner on 01.02.2011 citing incomplete documentation. Petitioner supplied the requisite documents. His case was accordingly forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 27.04.2013. Respondent No.1 rejected the case of the petitioner on 11.02.2015 on the ground of failure to meet the prescribed income criteria. It is not in dispute that the said decision was communicated to the petitioner on 27.02.2015. Petitioner acquiesced in this decision. He accepted the same and did not object to it. Neither any representation much less a legal recourse was resorted to by the petitioner at the relevant time against rejection of his case for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out to a representation made by the petitioner on 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-13), once again seeking employment on compassionate grounds and the response thereto from respondent No.2 dated 02.12.2025, directing respondent No.3 to examine petitioner’s matter, for seeking direction to the respondents in this writ petition to consider and decide petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate grounds. 3 4. Petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) did not give life to the stale claim of the petitioner. Respondents had already rejected the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds on 27.02.2015. In case the petitioner was aggrieved against rejection of his case, it was for him to have assailed the said decision in accordance with law at the appropriate stage, which the petitioner failed to do. Petitioner kept sleeping over the matter for ten years and thereafter preferred representation on 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) to respondent No.1 for employment on compassionate grounds. The office letter issued by respondent No.2 in view of petitioner’s latest representation, merely directing respondent No.3 to examine the matter, would not revive his case, which stood already rejected. 5. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh