IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9215 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Shishu Pal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Harmohan Thakur & Mr. Sunil Dutt Gautam, Advocates. For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who is seeking compassionate appointment, is aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure R-3/A), whereby an application made by him for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that he does not fulfill the eligibility/ income criteria as fixed by the Finance Department for providing employment on compassionate grounds. 2. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Harmohan Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that application having been filed by him for compassionate appointment has been decided by the respondents in mechanical manner because 2 no attempt has been made to verify the documents annexed with the application. He states that as per Income Certificate dated 23.05.2023 (Annexure P-13) adduced on record by the petitioner, income of the family from all sources does not exceed Rs.1,58,200/-, whereas, as per Policy for providing employment assistance, dated 01.11.2019, the income ceiling for family of three members is Rs.1,87,500 (Annexure P-2). 3. Pleadings adduced on record by the parties to the lis reveal that father of the petitioner died during Covid-19 i.e. on 14.03.2022, whereafter petitioner, being legal heir, filed an application before Sub Divisional Magistrate Pachhad (Sarahan), District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, seeking employment on compassionate grounds. On 07.08.2023, application filed by the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 vide letter No.1902. On 14.08.2023, the office of respondent No.3 wrote a letter to respondent No.4 directing it to ask the petitioner to furnish the documents as per the Himachal Pradesh Finance Department’s Office Memoranda dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019. On 02.09.2023, respondent No.4 forwarded the application of the petitioner as per the format along with the documents required as per the Himachal Pradesh Finance Department’s Office Memoranda dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019. Though petitioner was legitimately expecting to be given appointment 3 on compassionate grounds, but vide communication dated 27.02.2025, he came to be informed that he was not been found fit due to non-fulfillment of income/ eligibility criteria fixed by the Finance Department vide Office Memoranda dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs: “a. That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued and the order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-8), issued by the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected, be quashed and set aside. b. That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to reconsider and allow the petitioner’s application/representation dated 25.08.2022, seeking employment on compassionate grounds, and thereafter to forthwith issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner to Class-IV post, in accordance with the applicable policy.” 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed. Careful perusal of Income Certificate dated 25.03.2023 (Annexure P-13) adduced on record by the petitioner reveals that annual income of the petitioner’s family does not exceed Rs.1,58,200/-. Since father of the petitioner expired in 4 the year 2022, case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was to be considered in terms of Policy, which was in vogue at the relevant time. As per Policy in vogue, maximum income limit is Rs.2,50,000/-, but office memorandum dated 01.11.2019 provides for method of assessing indigency. As per office memorandum dated 01.11.2019 (Annexure P-2), maximum ceiling of total family income to assess indigency is fixed a Rs.2,50,000/-, presuming a family of four persons. Even if the number of family persons exceeds four, the family size will still be presumed to be four. If the family members are less than four, 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 three, the maximum income limit would be Rs.1,87,500/- per annum to determine indigency. If family size is two, the income limit would be Rs.1,25,000/- per annum to determine indigency. 5. Careful perusal of legal heir Certificate dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure P-3), adduced on record by the petitioner, suggests that the deceased employee had a family comprising of three members i.e. one wife and two sons. If it is so, the maximum income limit for a family of three would be Rs.1,87,500/-, whereas in the case at hand, maximum income of the petitioner, as has been notified by the competent authority (Annexure P-13), is Rs.1,58,200/-. 5 6. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that annual income of the petitioner, which was shown as Rs.1,58,200/-, was subsequently reassessed and it was found that on account of pension being received by the wife of the deceased along with agriculture income, total family income of the petitioner exceeds the maximum limit, however, having carefully perused statement of income from all sources, other than the family pension and retiral benefits, in respect of the family of the deceased employee as on the date of submission of application for compassionate employment, this Court finds that income of the petitioner from agriculture is Rs.20,700/- and besides above, income from all other sources is Rs.1,36,800/-. If both the afore incomes are added together, total comes to be Rs.1,57,500/-. The amount of Rs.1,36,800/- also includes pension, which is being received by the mother of the deceased. If it is so, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the respondents decided the application of the petitioner mechanically, without bothering to look into the records. Since it is apparent from the material adduced on record by the petitioner that family of the deceased employee was not having income more than Rs.1,58,500/- and family of the deceased employee comprises of three members, impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner deserves to be rectified in accordance with law. 6 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh taking note of fact that annual income of the petitioner is Rs.1,58,200/-, which also includes pensionary benefits being received by the mother of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. 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 orders. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of. December 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge