Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35948 (HP)

RAJEEV KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/17388/2025 · 2025-11-10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17388/2025 Decided on: 10.11.2025 Rajeev Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shivani Priya, Advocate vice Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. In view of the order impugned in this writ petition, the reliefs prayed for the petitioner and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply of this petition is not required to be called from the respondents. Accordingly, the matter has been heard. 3. Petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) Quashed and set aside the order dated 27.05.2025 annexure P-6. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 (ii) Further direct the respondents to treat and convert the services of Late Sh. Chaman Lal (father of the petitioner) from part-time to contractual basis w.e.f. 01.01.2019, in parity with other similarly situated Water Guards.” 4. In terms of impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), the respondents have rejected petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground. From the impugned order, it can be deciphered that petitioner’s father Sh. Chaman Lal was serving as Water Guard under the respondents-Jal Shakti Division Baijnath w.e.f. 01.01.2007. He completed 12 years of service in the year 2019. At the time the services of water guards were being brought on contract basis, the State Government prescribed the eligibility condition of theirs’ being Class-8th pass. Sh. Chaman Lal was not 8th pass. Since Sh. Chaman Lal did not possess the said qualification, his services were not converted on contractual basis. Sh. Chaman Lal passed away in April, 2022. Subsequently, all those water guards, who did not possess the education eligibility condition, were granted One Time Relaxation (OTR) by the respondents in view of a Court decision and their services were regularized vide office letter dated 11.10.2022. However, by this time Sh. Chaman Lal had left for heavenly abode, therefore, his services were not brought on contractual/regular establishment. 3 In view of above reasoning, the respondents have declined to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Admittedly, the respondents had granted One Time Relaxation (OTR) from the requirement of possessing educational eligibility under office letter dated 11.10.2022 for bringing the services of Water Guards onto contractual/regular establishment. All those similarly situated to Sh. Chaman Lal, were extended the benefit of said OTR, except Sh. Chaman Lal, petitioner’s father. Merely because petitioner’s father had left for heavenly abode in April, 2022, would not mean that he/his legal heirs cannot be conferred the benefit of office order dated 11.10.2022 for bringing his services onto contractual/regular establishment at par with other similarly situated water guards. This, however, would depend upon examination of requisite parameters as to whether Sh. Chaman Lal fulfilled the other eligibility conditions, if any, for bringing his service onto contractual/regular establishment. In view of above, the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of relief No.(ii) at the first instance after examining the facts and the applicable rule position. Based upon the said decision, petitioner’s case for compassionate employment be considered afresh thereafter. This entire exercise 4 be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th November, 2025(rohit)