IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4867 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Yogesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Hakam Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hakam Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that at no point of time, application, if any, was ever made by him in the year 2013 for appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of death of his father. Since at relevant time, petitioner was minor and he became major in the year 2014, any application filed by him or his uncle on his behalf prior to afore year, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is of no consequence. He submitted an application for compassionate grounds on 15.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), praying therein for compassionate appointment, but the same is not being considered on the pretext that his prayer for compassionate appointment already stands rejected, pursuant to his having made application in the year 2013. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Father of the petitioner namely Sh. Sita Ram was initially appointed with the respondent-Corporation as Driver under the Regional Manager, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. Unfortunately, he died in harness, while driving the HRTC bus enroute Chandigarh (UT) to Baijnath, Himachal Pradesh, on 03.02.2011 in an accident. Since mother of the petitioner had expired prior to death of petitioner’s father i.e. 25.09.2010, none was left in the family to take care of the petitioner and his sister, who at relevant time, were minor. In the year 2013, uncle of the petitioner submitted an application on his behalf for compassionate appointment and sister of the petitioner also swore an affidavit, thereby agreeing that she shall have no objection in case appointment on compassionate ground is given to her brother. Prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through his uncle remained pending till 09.12.2021, on which date Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of higher annual income i.e. Rs.1,82,958/- per month, whereas the 2 income ceiling at the time of submission of employment case on 17.08.20123 was upto Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. 3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner is that he never made any application in the year 2013 for compassionate appointment because at that time he was minor. For the first time, petitioner submitted an application in the year 2024, but same is not being considered on the pretext that the earlier application filed in the year 2013, praying therein for compassionate appointment already stands rejected. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed. An attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the pretext that in the year 2013, petitioner had moved an application for compassionate appointment through his uncle, which was considered and decided, in terms of Policy prevalent in the year 2013. Since in the year 2013, maximum income limit was Rs.1,50,000/-, case of the petitioner, whose income was assessed more than Rs.1,82,000/-, was not fit for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, submitted that otherwise also, there is no explanation rendered on record that what prevented the petitioner to file an application immediately after his having attained majority. 3 He submitted that as per own case of the petitioner, petitioner attained majority in the year 2014, but yet he filed application for compassionate appointment in the year 2024. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court finds merit in the contention of learned counsel representing the respondents that uncle of the petitioner had filed application in the year 2014 on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, but since it is not in dispute that in the year 2013, petitioner was minor and he attained majority in the year 2014, application, if any, given by his uncle in the year 2013, is otherwise of no consequence. Application filed by the petitioner after his having attained majority for compassionate appointment could have been considered by the department. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner attained majority in the year 2014, any application prior to afore year for compassionate appointment, is/was of no consequence being premature. 6. Reply filed by the respondents if perused in its entirety, clearly reveals that impugned order dated 09.12.2021 was passed on the application filed in the year 2013 by the uncle of the petitioner, on which date, petitioner had not attained majority. If it is so, impugned order dated 09.12.2021, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner 4 on the ground of income criteria, is not tenable in law, as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Whether the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment through application filed in the year 2024 is belated or not is a question to be considered and decided by the respondents, while considering the aforesaid application on its own merits, but the grounds otherwise sought to be raised in the instant proceedings, as taken note hereinabove, cannot be a reason to reject the prayer made in the present application. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-8) is hereby quashed and set aside. However, respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) 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 taking note of the policy in force at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. November 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 5