2025:HHC:36724 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5944 of 2024 Decided on: 3rd November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shivam Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Rattan and Ms. Chetna Thapar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondents have declined to grant employment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner. Hence, the grievance. 2. The case Petitioner’s father-Sh. Yogesh Sharma was serving with the respondent-Police Department as Assistant Sub-Inspector. He died in harness on 30.07.2017. Late Sh. Yogesh Sharma was survived by three legal heirs including his son-the present petitioner. Petitioner applied 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:36724 for compassionate employment vide Annexure P-5. The respondents rejected the case of the petitioner on 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that petitioner’s total family income was beyond the maximum ceiling limit of indigency prescribed under the applicable compassionate employment policy. Feeling aggrieved against the rejection of his application for employment on compassionate grounds, petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the order of Respondent no.2 dated 08.06.2021 may kindly be held wrong, illegal and arbitrary and may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the present petitioner as Class-III/Clerk in the respondent department on regular basis.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration:- 4(i). It is not in dispute that petitioner’s application for employment on compassionate grounds was to be considered by the respondents in terms of Government of Himachal Pradesh office memorandum dated 07.03.2019, as modified vide office memorandum dated 01.11.2019. Following para 12 thereof provides the maximum ceiling 3 2025:HHC:36724 limit of a candidate’s family income for determining his eligibility for employment on compassionate grounds:- “The maximum ceiling of total family income to access indigency is fixed as Rs.2,50,000/- presuming a family of 04 persons. Even if the number of family persons exceeds 04, the family size will still be presumed to 04. If the family members are less than 04, then income of the family would be calculated by multiplying Rs.62,500/- by the number of family members. Thus, if the family size is 03, the maximum income limit would be Rs.1,87,500/- per annum to determine indigency. If family size is 02, the income limit would be Rs.1,25,000/- per annum.” In the instant case, it is an admitted position that as per legal heirs certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, his family consisted of 03 members. Thus, in order to be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds, petitioner’s family income should not be more than Rs.1,87,500/- (Rs.62500 X 3). Whereas, in the instant case, as per the income certificate (Annexure P-7), petitioner’s family income was Rs.3,25,000/- per annum. In view of above, the respondents were justified in rejecting petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate grounds, his family income being in excess of the prescribed maximum limit. 4(ii). The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner concerns one Sh. Sahil Rana. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, aforesaid Sh. Sahil Rana 4 2025:HHC:36724 is son of late Sh. Saju Ram Rana, who died while serving as Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur; After the death of late Sh. Saju Ram Rana, his family was in receipt of Rs.90,000/- as pension per month, which was three times more than the family pension being received by petitioner’s family; Despite this, the respondents had given employment on compassionate grounds in favour of Sh. Sahil Rana on 06.09.2023 (Annexure R-5). It was urged that the petitioner was also similarly situated. He could not have been discriminated vis-à-vis Sh. Sahil Rana. Petitioner had legitimate expectation that relaxation given in case of Sh. Sahil Rana would also be extended in his favour. I am not impressed with the aforesaid argument. Petitioner was conscious of the fact that he was applying for compassionate employment in terms of the applicable policy. It is well settled that compassionate employment is not a source of recruitment, but is with the objective to come to the aid of a government employee, who leaves behind his family in indigent circumstances. The assessment of indigency has to be as per the applicable policy. The petitioner does not fall within the indigency criteria laid down in terms of the policy. Merely because the respondents have granted relaxation to one person for 5 2025:HHC:36724 employing him on compassionate grounds, cannot be stretched to mean that the petitioner would have the legitimate expectation of same relaxation to be exercised in his favour by the respondents. Legitimate expectation has to be confined only to consideration of the case in terms of the applicable provisions of the policy in vogue and not specifically to relaxation thereof. It is well settled that negative parity cannot be claimed in a Court of law. The respondents in their reply have justified employing Sh. Sahil Rana on compassionate grounds as a special case as under:- “…………….. It is pertinent to submit here that the death of late Sh. Saju Ram Rana, SP Bilaspur was occurred while performing his official duty to maintain Law & Order during Jan Abhar Rally of Hon'ble Chief Minister of H.P. at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The case for providing employment on compassionate grounds in respect of Mr. Sahil Rana S/o late Sh. Saju Ram Rana, IPS was received in this office for the post of Inspector of Police and same was sent to the Govt. of H.P. vide this office letter No.P. III (4) Depdt./S.R. Rana/2023-1041 dated 24.01.2023. The Govt. of HP vide letter No.Home (A)B(2)-1/2023 dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure R-5) conveyed the approval for providing employment on compassionate grounds for the post of Sub-Inspector as a special case, considering the place and time of death of the deceased by relaxing the provision of Recruitment Rules of the category of Sub Inspector. Thus the action of the respondent State is legal, fair and just and the same needs to be upheld.” Significantly, Clause 7 of the office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 (applicable policy for 6 2025:HHC:36724 compassionate employment-Annexure R-2) vests power to relax provisions of the policy in genuine cases with the respondents. Further, aforesaid Sh. Sahil Rana has not been even impleaded as respondent in this case to defend his compassionate employment, which is not even otherwise under challenge in this writ petition. 5. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 09.06.2021 qua the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh