1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6272 of 2024 Decided on: 17th November, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dharam Pal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr.Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on 08.11.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner’s father Shri Deep Ram was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Band Staff in the respondent- Police Department at Shimla. He died in harness on 18.10.2010 after a prolonged illness. Petitioner instituted Dharam Pal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 with the grievance that even though he had applied 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWPOA No.5336/2020, decided on 16.09.2023. 2 for compassionate employment, the respondents had not considered his case in view of office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 on the ground that compassionate employment in case of natural death was permissible only to such of eligible dependents of those deceased government employees who died in harness on or before attaining the age of 58 years. Since the petitioner’s father had passed away at the age of 55 years after prolong illness, the petitioner was not entitled for benefit of compassionate employment. During hearing of Dharam Pal2, office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 was placed on record whereby the aforesaid condition dis-entitling the petitioner from compassionate appointment was deleted. Taking note of the same, Dharam Pal2 was decided on 16.09.2023 with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate employment. Pursuant thereto, respondents considered compassionate employment case of the petitioner and vide office order dated 08.11.2023 rejected the same on the grounds of its delayed submission as also the income criteria. It is in the above background, the petitioner has now assailed office order dated 08.11.2023. 3 4. According to the petitioner, he had applied for compassionate employment in the year 2012, however, no contemporary document on record supports petitioner’s assertion. Respondents’ stand is that petitioner had applied for compassionate employment for the first time on 24.04.2018 i.e. 07 years 06 months and 06 days after the death of his father whereas in terms of applicable office memorandum dated 18.01.1990, the petitioner ought to have applied for compassionate employment within 03 years from the date of death. The ground for delay/limitation taken by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds has not been met with by the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to contradict this ground. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and same is dismissed. In view of this, there is no necessity to examine the other ground of petitioner’s family income being more than the prescribed limit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 17, 2025 Judge yogesh