( 2025:HHC:44017 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.781 of 2025 Decided on: 11th December, 2025 Nishant Kumar .......Appellant versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration in the present appeal is to the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in CWP No.10953 of 2023 titled as Nishant Kumar vs. State of H.P and others of learned Single Judge on the ground that in the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the case of the writ-petitioner directions have been issued that his case be considered by the policy prevalent in the year 2010. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the annual income of petitioner was more than prescribed limit and upheld the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 2 order dated 14.08.2023/16.08.2023 (Annexure P-22), whereby the respondents had rejected his case, as it was found that the pension statement depicted Rs.1,31,694/- which was thus above the prescribed limit, in view of the certificates which have been issued by the SDM, Arki, District Solan, H.P. The limit of Rs.1,00,000/- having been prescribed since his income certificate as such showed that he had income of Rs.1,15,904/- and the family pension statement depicted it as Rs.1,31,694/- 2. It is pertinent to notice that the said officer while passing the impugned order dated 14/16.08.20203 as such had also referred to Execution Petition No.118 of 2022 filed in LPA No.6 of 2020, but apparently never took into consideration the final order passed on 11.11.2020 (Annexure P-20). However, the earlier stand as such which had been specifically pleaded in the writ petition and in the Contempt Petition No.134 of 2021 decided on 10.08.2021 has apparently not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, whereby it was noticed that the writ-petitioner was at serial No.3 of the waiting list, keeping in view of the earlier directions issued in LPA No.6 of 2020. The said aspect has been missed by the learned Single Judge in spite of the ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 3 specific pleadings made in paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition, whereby even the said order was reproduced and the copy of the judgment had also been annexed as Annexure P-21 dated 10.08.2022. 3. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed, because the State cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same breath. 4. It is to be noticed that the writ-petitioner has been fighting for the benefits of the compassionate appointment since his father had died way back 20 years back i.e. on 27.07.2004. The writ-petitioner had apparently applied in the year 2010 on attaining the age of majority as such and his case had initially been rejected vide order dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure P-17) on the ground that there was no such facility available to him under the policy dated 15.07.2010. Thereafter, he had filed Original Application before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, which eventually came to be transferred and registered as CWPOA No. 3137 of 2019 and was ultimately dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court on 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-19) primarily on the ground that it being a concession as such it could not be extended beyond ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 4 the policy and the same provided only appointment to the widow, orphan and not to the son. 5. The order dated 16.12.2019 was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.6 of 2020 decided on 11.11.2020 (Annexure P-20), whereby it was noticed that there was earlier policy dated 18.01.1990 and therefore, the writ-petitioner having applied before the policy dated 15.07.2010, he had to be considered under the earlier policy and thus the order dated 03.06.2011 was set aside and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Directions were accordingly issued to decide the application of the writ- petitioner for compassionate appointment. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “22. Thus, the Letter Patent Appeal is allowed, the office order dated 3.6.2011, Annexure A-12, as well as the Judgment dated 16.12.2019, passed by Ld. Single Judge in CWPOA No.3137 of 2019 is set aside, and the concerned respondent is directed to decide, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within three months from today, in the light of the policy for compassionate appointments in force at the time when the appellant-petitioner Nishant Kumar, had applied for employment on compassionate grounds. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.” ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 5 6. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.134 of 2021, which was disposed of on 10.08.2021 on account of the fact that in the seniority list of the eligible candidates, for appointment on compassionate grounds, the name of the writ-petitioner was at Serial No.3, and 5% posts were reserved to be filled on compassionate basis. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:- “2. In the reply, which has been filed by respondent No. 2 to the petition, it is mentioned in para-4 of the preliminary submissions that a seniority list of the candidates, who are eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, is maintained by the department concerned, and in the said seniority list, name of the petitioner is at serial No. 3. Besides this, 5% posts are reserved to be filed on compassionate basis. 3. Mr. Adarsh Sahrma, learned Additional Advocate General on the strength of the said preliminary submissions submits that the petitioner shall be offered appointment, on compassionate basis, strictly in terms of the seniority list being maintained by the respondent- department, subject however to his fulfilling other eligibility conditions. His statement is taken on record. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered view that the directions passed by the Court in L.P.A. No. 6 of 2020 are not being willfully breached by the respondents, and accordingly, these contempt proceedings are ordered to be closed and notice discharged, but with the ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 6 observations that the petitioner be offered appointment on compassionate basis, in terms of submissions in para-4 of the preliminary submissions of the reply filed to the petition by respondent No. 2.” 7. Apparently, since adherence had not been given to the order of the Division Bench, the Execution Petition No.18 of 2022 came to be filed and on notice being issued on 01.08.2023 the impugned order was passed by the Secretary (Education) taking a total somersault and without even examining the aspect that he was already amongst the list of eligible candidates and had only to wait for his turn on the basis of 5% posts reserved for compassionate appointment, as noticed by the learned Single Judge. The officer, thereafter rejected the case on the ground that the family income including the pension was higher than the prescribed limit. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition was filed which order had now been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We are thus of the considered opinion that having accepted and put the writ-petitioner on the eligible list of candidates at Serial No.3, he was only awaiting his turn for appointment keeping in view the cap of 5% to the said appointments and thus the fresh order which came to be passed is detrimental to the petitioner and cannot sustain, keeping in view the fact that the earlier directions were also issued in LPA No.6 of 2020 to ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 7 consider his case as per the earlier policy. Once the specific stand earlier was that he was already eligible thus it cannot be now sustained. The specific averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the written statement which had specifically not been denied by filing the reply is only to the extent that the same pertains to the record and calls for no reply and any averment contrary to the record need no reply. 9. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order dated 14.08.2023 cannot sustain as the writ-petitioner had already a vested right and, therefore, the learned Single Judge missed this crucial aspect both in the pleadings and the documents attached, which had forced the writ-petitioner to file the present appeal. Therefore, the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. 10. Resultantly, we allow the present appeal and quash the order dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure P-22) and set aside the judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and the respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the writ-petitioner within three months from today, since it was the stand of the State that he was at Serial No.3 way back on 10.08.2021. More ( 2025:HHC:44017 ) 8 than four years have passed since then and, therefore, there is no plausible reason to grant time more than three months to the respondents. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) December 11, 2025 Judge (naveen)