Judgment : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Tarsem Pathania, has initially filed OA No.6432 of 2017, which upon abolition of State Administrative Tribunal stands transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No. 3263 of 2020, seeking the following relief:- “7(i) That the respondents may be directed to give employment to the applicant on compassionate grounds immediately and with retrospective date.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the  petitioner is  that his father died during  service as Deputy  Ranger  on 30.08.2007. Petitioner, being the dependent applied for compassionate appointment but since no action was taken, the petitioner filed an Original Application i.e. O.A.  [D] No.199 of  2016  before   Learned  State Administrative  Tribunal, which   was disposed of on 27.09.2016 [Annexure A-4], directing Respondent No 2- Principal   Chief  Conservator of   Forests to consider and take decision on reference as in Annexure A-13. 2(i). Despite  directions  passed  by  the  State Administrative Tribunal on 27.09.2016 [Annexure A-4], the  Respondents  have  been   twisting  the matter primarily on the ground that the petitioner’s elder brother,  Armeet  Kumar  is  in  Government  Service ignoring  that  the  petitioner  had  furnished  the documents-copies  of the  certificate  as well  as the Parivar  Registrar, Annexure P-21 and Annexure P-20, respectively to establish that his elder brother had been living separately since 07.01.2007 [Annexure P-20], i.e. prior to the death of his father on 30.08.2007 and, therefore, the stand of Respondents in denying the consideration was arbitrary and illegal. 2(ii). During the pendency of the instant petition, the State Authorities issued another communication dated 16.08.2024 [Annexure R-V] [at page 101 of the paper book], directing the petitioner to furnish the income certificate of his elder brother, Armeet Kumar, just to delay the matter, which was unfair, unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES-RESPONDENTS: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit of Conservator of Forests, Dharamshala Circle, verified on 08.02.2018. 3(i). Para-3 of the Preliminary Submissions of Reply-Affidavit reiterates the objection that Bhag Singh, the deceased employee and father of the petitioner, died on 30.08.2007 leaving three sons, out of whom one is already in Government Service as in communication dated 18.03.2009 [Annexure R-III]. Further in Para-7 of Reply-Affidavit, the Respondents have stated that petitioner was asked to submit some documents and after receipts of documents his case shall be submitted to the Government for consideration. REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY PETITIONER: 4. Further in Para-7 of Reply-Affidavit, the Respondents have stated that petitioner was asked to submit some documents and after receipts of documents his case shall be submitted to the Government for consideration. REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner filed a Rejoinder, stating that the plea taken by the Respondents was not justified, as the elder brother of petitioner, namely, Armeet Kumar, who was serving in Army, had already separated from joint family before the demise of his father, Bhag Singh and therefore, the plea was vitiated by non-application of mind. 5. Heard, Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General. 6. Before proceeding to analyze the claim, it is necessary to have to recap of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Clause 1, 2 and Clause 5 (d)] reads under:- “Clause 1 & 2 of Policy dated 18.01.1990: The undersigned is directed to say that the question of revising the policy for providing employment assistance to dependents of Govt. servants, who die while in Govt. service, leaving their families in indigent circumstances was under consideration of the Govt. for some time past. After thorough consideration of the supersession of all previous orders in this respect it has now been decided to adopt the following new policy for grant of employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of deceased Govt. servants in future:- 1. Policy: The employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of Govt. servants who die while in service is not to be provided as a matter of right. It should be given only in deserving cases whore the family of deceased Govt. servant is left in indigent circumstances requiring immedi- ate means of subsistence. The concerned Administrative Departments would satisfy themselves about the indigent circum- stances of the family before appointment on compassionate grounds is made. 2. TO WHOM THE POLICY IS APPLICABLE: The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a  son  or  an  unmarried  daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. The concerned Administrative Departments would satisfy themselves about the indigent circum- stances of the family before appointment on compassionate grounds is made. 2. TO WHOM THE POLICY IS APPLICABLE: The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a  son  or  an  unmarried  daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. Servant, to father, mother, brother and unmarried sister) of: a) A regular Government employee/ Contractual employee, who dies while in services (including suicide), leaving his family indigent & in immediate need of assistance; b) A Daily Waged worker, who dies while in service, leaving his/her family indigent & in immediate need of assistance; c) A Government servant, who has been missing for more than two years, and the family is indigent & needs immediate assistance [an FIR to this effect must be lodged with the Police, the missing person should  be  declared  not  traceable by the Court and the competent authority must satisfy itself that the case is genuine. The cases of those missing Government servants are not to be considered who had less than two years to retire on the date from which they have gone missing or who are suspected to have committed fraud, or are suspected to have joined any terrorist organization or are suspected to have gone abroad; d) A Government servant (Class-III and IV only), who retires on medical grounds under Rule-38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, provided the employee so retiring has not crossed the age of 45 years. “Clause 5 Policy dated 18.01.1990: 5 (a) to (c) ...Not relevant... 5(d). In  all  cases  where  one  or more  members  of  the  family are already in Government service or in defense or Para Military Forces or in employment of Autonomous bodies/ Boards/Corporations etc., of the State /Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. In cases, however, where the widow to the deceased or the medically retired Government servant represents or  claims  that  her  employed  sons/daughters are not supporting her the request of employment assistance may be considered only in respect of the widow. Such matter should be finally got decided from the Council of Ministers after consulting Department of Personnel and Finance.” STATE ACT AND RULES: 6(i). Such matter should be finally got decided from the Council of Ministers after consulting Department of Personnel and Finance.” STATE ACT AND RULES: 6(i). In order to appreciate the claim of the petitioner, it is necessary to have recap of the State Act and State Rules which gives legal recognition to the “separate-divided family” vis-à-vis the “joint family”, under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Rules, as under:- “Section 2 (13-B) of The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994: “family” means a joint “family” of all persons descended from common ancestor including adoption, who live, worship and mess  together  permanently  as  shown in the parivar register of the Gram Panchayat;” Section 186 The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994: 186. Power to make rules.- (1) The State Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters which under any provisions of this Act, are required to be prescribed or to be provided for by rules. (3) All rules shall be subject to the condition of previous publication. (4) All rules shall be laid on the Table of Legislative Assembly. (5) In making any rule, the State Government may direct that a breach thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees and in the case of continuing breach with a further fine which may extend to five rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the first conviction.” 6(ii). Deriving strength  from Section 186, the rule making authority, framed The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj [General] Rules, 1997 and Rule 21 provides  for  the  preparation  of  Parivar  Register  of a “family” and governs the mode and manner of giving recognition to “separate-divided family” vis-à-vis the joint family”, in following terms: “Rule 21 of The H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997: 21. Pariwar Register and registration of births, deaths and marriages. (1) After the Government has established a Sabha by a notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, a Pariwar Register shall be prepared for every Gram Sabha in Form-19 appended to these rules. It shall contain the names and particulars of all persons, family-wise, who are the bonafide residents of the village which forms part of the Sabha area. (1) After the Government has established a Sabha by a notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, a Pariwar Register shall be prepared for every Gram Sabha in Form-19 appended to these rules. It shall contain the names and particulars of all persons, family-wise, who are the bonafide residents of the village which forms part of the Sabha area. The register shall be prepared by the Panchayat Secretary and shall be verified by the Panchayat Inspector of the concerned Block. (2) At the close of each calendar year, the entries in the Pariwar Register, required to be prepared under sub- rule(1) shall be revised and all entries pertaining to births, deaths and marriages shall be made in the register which had taken place during the preceding year i.e. upto the 31st day of December. No other addition or alternation may be made without any authenticated evidence or certificate of the member of concerned constituency of the Gram Panchayat. In the event of division of the family, separation of family may only be entered in the Parivar Register on the decision of the Gram Sabha  by  passing  a  resolution by majority in its general or special meeting on an application made by the Head of family concerned. However, the Gram Sabha shall take into consideration the definition of family as defined under Clause 13-A of Section 2 of the Act while deciding the matter regarding division of family. It shall be the duty of Panchayat Inspector to verify these entries after satisfying himself about the reasons recorded by the Panchayat Secretary. He  shall  also  put  his  initials  on the goshwara prepared by Panchayat Secretary on Form 19-A: Provided  that  no  entry  with  regard to separation of family shall be made in the Pariwar Register unless having access to the toilet to the family so separated. He  shall  also  put  his  initials  on the goshwara prepared by Panchayat Secretary on Form 19-A: Provided  that  no  entry  with  regard to separation of family shall be made in the Pariwar Register unless having access to the toilet to the family so separated. (3) The register shall be revised and brought  upto-date  under  sub-rule (2) by 31 January of each year and public notice will be issued to the effect that- (a) the  register  has  been  revised and brought upto-date under sub rule(2); (b) the register, as revised, is available for public inspection for a period of fifteen days (excepting the public holidays) between 10 AM to 5 PM in the office of the Gram Panchayat; (c) if any person has to make any objection with regard to any entry or any omission in the register, he may make the objection to that effect to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat within the said period of fifteen days. The notice shall be pasted in the office of the Gram Panchayat and other conspicuous places in a Gram Sabha area. (4) The revised entries made in the register under sub-rule (2) and the objections received under sub-rule (3), shall be taken into consideration and disposed off and verified by the Panchayat Inspector after having given an opportunity of being heard to the person(s) concerned. (5) The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat shall undertake registration of births and deaths in accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969 and rules made thereunder. [(6) The officer or employee of the Gram Panchayat, appointed as Registrar of Marriages, shall undertake registration of marriages in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1996 and the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Rules, 2004.” ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into  account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the  material on  record, this Court is of the considered view, that the action  of  the  State  Authorities  in  keeping  the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment pending and in delaying the same on non-existent facts cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny and is untenable, for following reasons:- CLAUSE 5 (d) OF POLICY NOT ATTRACTED: 7(i). Stand of the State Authorities in Reply- Affidavit, that if a member of “family” was already in Government Service, therefore, as per Clause 5 (d) of the Policy dated 18.01.1990 the compassionate employment cannot be granted to the “second member of family” is not tenable, in the fact-situation of instant case, for the reason, that indisputably, the petitioners father, namely, late Shri Bhag Singh died on 30.08.2007 and his elder brother, Armeet Kumar had been living separately prior to death since 07.01.2007  which  is  borne  out  from  Resolution  No. 16 of Gram Panchayat Hatwas and the copy of Parivar Register and confirmatory Certificates Annexure P-21 and Annexure P-20, respectively. CLAUSE 5 (d) CANNOT APPLY WHEN ELDER BROTHER RECOGNISED AND ACCORDED STATUS OF DIVIDED-SEPERATE FAMILY BY OPERATION OF LAW PRIOR TO DEATH OF FATHER: 7(ii). CLAUSE 5 (d) CANNOT APPLY WHEN ELDER BROTHER RECOGNISED AND ACCORDED STATUS OF DIVIDED-SEPERATE FAMILY BY OPERATION OF LAW PRIOR TO DEATH OF FATHER: 7(ii). Stand of the State Authorities in invoking Clause 5 (d) of the Policy cannot sustain, for the reason; firstly, the bar contained in Clause 5 (d) of the policy cannot be invoked in the fact-situation of instant case; and secondly, once elder brother of the petitioner was living separately prior to the death of his father therefore, the bar contained in Clause 5 (d) of the Policy cannot be invoked so as to deny consideration for employment to those “eligible dependants who came within the ambit of family, as on the date of death of the deceased government servant” alike the present petitioner is ex-facie vitiated by non-application of mind; and thirdly, action of the State Authorities in treating family of the brother to be a part of “joint family despite having been recognized and conferred the status of a separate-divided family by operation of law, amounts to invoking “non-existent factors” so as to defeat the claim of the petitioner, vitiates the decision making process, rendering it perverse and arbitrary; and fourthly, Clause-5 (d) of the Policy that if a member of family is already in Government Service then, the second member of the family is not to be considered for employment cannot be applied by ignoring the intent and object of such a Policy, when, elder brother was recognized and conferred the status of a separate family on 07.01.2007 [Annexure P-21] and he ceased to be a part of joint family of his father as well as present petitioner from 07.01.2007, which obviously prior to the death of his father on 30.08.2007; and fifthly, in absence of definition of “family” in compassionate employment policy dated 18.01.1990, the term “family” has to be construed by taking aid from the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act and State Rules framed thereunder, which defines the term “family”, in the context of the “separate-divided family” vis-à-vis the “joint family”; and sixthly, the legal recognition accorded to the separate family by operation of law in the State of Himachal Pradesh can neither be negated nor curtailed or restricted so as to reinvoke the earlier status of joint family, which had ceased qua the elder brother vis-à-vis his father and the petitioner w.e.f. 07.01.2007; and lastly, by operation of law, once elder brother, Armeet Kumar was accorded and recognized as an independent and separate family since 07.01.2007 [Annexure P-21] and this fact was incorporated in Parivar curtailed or restricted so as to reinvoke the earlier status of joint family, which had ceased qua the elder brother vis-à-vis his father and the petitioner w.e.f. 07.01.2007; and lastly, by operation of law, once elder brother, Armeet Kumar was accorded and recognized as an independent and separate family since 07.01.2007 [Annexure P-21] and this fact was incorporated in Parivar Registrar [Annexure P-20] much prior to the death of his father on 30.08.2007 therefore, legal recognition accorded to elder brother as a “separate-divided family” cannot be negated and nullified, by treating his elder brother to be a part of “joint family”, by acting dehors the intent of the H.P. Panchayati Act and Rules just to carve out an ineligibility qua the petitioner. Thus, the State Authorities can neither defeat nor curtail the dejure consideration of claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment. EXPRESSION ‘FAMILY’ IN POLICY SUBSERVIENT TO STATE ACT AND RULES: 7(iii). Provision of Clause 5 (d) of Policy dated 18.01.1990 could neither e invoked nor made applicable to the disadvantage of the petitioner, for the reason, that by operation of law, once the elder brother namely  Armeet  Kumar  had  been  accorded  and  had acquired the status of “separate-divided family” as per Resolution No. 16 of Gram Panchayat Hatwas and such legal status stands reflected as such in Parivar  Register vide  Annexure  P-21  and Annexure P-20, prior to the death of the petitioner’s father on 30.08.2007. In the absence of any definition of “family” in the Policy of Compassionate Appointment dated 18.01.1990, the expression “family” has to be construed by deriving aid from Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act and Panchayati Raj [General] Rules, 1997 which governs and regulates the mode and manner of granting recognition and legal entity as “separate-divided family” distinctly from erstwhile “joint family” which existed prior to such division- separation by virtue of the Enactment and Statutory Rules. Expression “family” in Clause 5 (d) of the said  Policy has to be construed  and  interpreted to be subservient to the State Act and Rules and the expression “family” in the Policy can neither have supremacy nor can it operate dehors the Act- Rules. Expression “family” in Clause 5 (d) of the said  Policy has to be construed  and  interpreted to be subservient to the State Act and Rules and the expression “family” in the Policy can neither have supremacy nor can it operate dehors the Act- Rules. Thus, the action of the Respondents-State Authorities in ignoring these material aspects, which  confer and recognize the right and status as a separate-divided family by operation of law; then, the Dejure recognition given to elder brother and his family cannot be ignored, by treating the family of  elder  brother  to  be  joint,  with  intent  render the petitioner ineligible and to deprive the petitioner of consideration and the resultant appointment on compassionate grounds. STATUTORY RECOGNITION GIVEN TO ELDER BROTHER AS DIVIDED FAMILY CANNOT BE NEGATED BY GIVING RESTRICTIVE MEANING TO EXPRESSION FAMILY IN POLICY- IMPERMISSIBLE: 7(iv). Pertinently, once Policy dated 18.01.1990 does not spell out the term “family”, who will be considered to be members of a “family”, a reference to the State Enactment and Rules become necessary, whereby, the expression “family” [joint or separate- divided] has been dealt within Section 2 (13-B) of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 21 of The Panchayati Raj Rules, 1994, as referred to above. Perusal of Section 2(13-B) of the Act defines the term “family” so as to mean “joint family” of all persons descended from common ancestor including adoption, who live, worship and mess together permanently as shown in Parivar Register of the Gram Panchayat. Conversely, Section 2 (13-B) and Rule 21 governs the mode, manner and legal recognition given to a “separate or divided family” by operation of law upon separation or division of a unit from erstwhile joint family, “divided-separate family” is required to be entered in Parivar Register on the basis of decision taken by Gram Sabha by passing a Resolution by majority. After decision of Gram Sabha, the factum of division of “family” is reflected by making necessary entries in Parivar Register. The term “family” used in Policy, including Clause 5 (d) of the Policy dated 18.01.1990, cannot be read in isolation. After decision of Gram Sabha, the factum of division of “family” is reflected by making necessary entries in Parivar Register. The term “family” used in Policy, including Clause 5 (d) of the Policy dated 18.01.1990, cannot be read in isolation. The expression “family” in Clause 5 (d) has to be read in context of definition of “family” in Section 2 (13-B) read with Section 186 and Rule 21 of Panchayati Raj Rules when, by operation of law, a separate-divided family acquires  a  distinct  and  different  legal  status  vis- à-vis the joint family. The provisions of the Statute and  Statutory  Rules  shall  have  supremacy  over the term “family” in Clause 5 (d) of the Policy. The expression “family” in Clause 5 (d) can neither be attracted  nor  invoked  or  applied  so  as  to  cover or include the erstwhile members of “joint family” despite the fact that such joint-family had ceased to be joint by operation of law [State Act and Rules]. Further the  rights  which stood  recognized as a separate-divided family in favour of brother [Armeet Kumar] via-a-vis separate family of petitioner -Tarsem Pathania and others, if any, cannot be set at naught either for reckoning the income or for reckoning eligibility of petitioner for compassionate appointment. Expression “family” contained in Clause 5 (d) of the Policy has to be read subservient to and subject to definition of “family” in Section 2(13-B) of the Act and Rule 21 of Rules. The legal recognition and conferment of an independent legal entity as a “separate-divided family” to the elder brother Armeet Kumar cannot be rendered inoperative, nugatory or otiose so as to disentitle the claim of the petitioner- Tarsem Pathania for compassionate appointment. CLAUSE 5 (d) OF POLICY CANNOT RENDER PETITIONER INELIGIBLE BY CONSTRUING TERM “FAMILY” DEHORS STATE ACT-RULES: 7(v). The provision of Clause 5 (d) of the Policy dated 18.01.1990 cannot be interpreted so as to render the petitioner ineligible or to disentitle and delay the actual De-facto and De-jure consideration, by treating the family of the petitioner as “joint”, with family of elder brother, who ceased to be a part of “joint family” on 07.01.2007 [Annexure P-20], prior to death of his father on 30.08.2007. Once elder brother was accorded legal status and was recognized as “separate-divided family” prior to death of his father and as per Clause 1 & 2 of Policy dated 18.01.1990, the eligibility for compassionate employment was to be restricted to the “dependent members of family on date of death of deceased” and the petitioner, who was eligible dependant, who resided with the joint family of his late father, at the time of his death on 30.08.2007 of his father could  not  have  been  denied  the  consideration, by carving out a superfluous, artificial ineligibility on account of his elder brother, dehors the object and intent of the Statute. It is not in dispute that the father of petitioner, Late Shri Bhag Singh died during service on 30.08.2007 and prior to his father’s death on 30.08.2007, the elder brother, Armeet Kumar was granted status of separate-divided “family” by Gram Panchayat,  Hatwas  in  terms  of  Resolution  No.16 on 07.01.2007 and was recognized and conferred the status of “separate–divided family” in Parivar Register and corroboratory certificates [Annexure P-21 and Annexure P-20. In these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be considered for compassionate appointment and such consideration has to be taken to logical end but without invoking the adversial provision of Clause 5 (d) of Policy dated 18.01.1990 to the disadvantage and prejudice of petitioner in peculiar fact-situation of instant case. ACTION REQUIRING INCOME PROOF OF ELDER BROTHER REVEALS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND: 7(vi). Now coming to the stand of the State Authorities, that the petitioner vide letter dated 16.08.2024 [Annexure R-V, at page 101 of paper book]  has  failed  to  furnish  the  income  certificate of elder brother, namely, Armeet Kumar. The above plea is vitiated by perversity and  non–application  of  mind  just  to  delay  the De-facto and Dejure consideration of claim of the petitioner for employment. Material on record reveals that elder brother of petitioner, namely, “Armeet Kumar and his family” was recognized as “separate legal entity family by operation of law” therefore, the letter dated 16.08.2024 [Annexure R-V, supra] requiring the petitioner to furnish the income certificate of elder brother [being separated], will neither be of assistance to Respondents nor will it have any effect and same cannot be invoked as a bar to consider the claim  of the  petitioner for deciding claim  of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is only the income of family of petitioner, which is to be considered and not the income of elder brother, when, family of elder brother stands recognized as a separate and independent family and is living separately since 07.01.2007 [Annexure P-20 & Annexure P-21] much prior to death of father on 30.08.2007. The legal recognition as a separate-divided given to the  family  of  the  elder  brother,  Armeet  Kumar and his family income cannot be made the basis or invoked so as to defeat the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. MATTER KEPT PENDING ENDLESSLY REVEALS ARBITRARINESS IN STATE ACTION DESPITE COURT ORDERS : 8. Once the State Authorities have kept the matter pending since 2017 till date [as in Para-7 of  Reply-Affidavit],  then, the  inaction  and  lethargy of State Authorities cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of the consideration and resultant appointment on compassionate grounds, when, nothing has been pointed out qua the ineligibility of the petitioner. 8(i). While dealing with claim for compassionate appointment, which was kept pending for long, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL & Ors. Versus Vidya Prasad (2021) 13 SCC 212 , deprecated the action by directing consideration as per the scheme under which he applied for compassionate appointment in following terms:- “3. It is  not  disputed by the  appellants that in terms of  the Scheme of 1998, the respondent was eligible in seeking  compassionate  appointment. The new Scheme (weightage point system Scheme) in supersession of the 1998 Scheme was introduced by the appellants on 27.06.2007 and immediately thereafter the candidature of the respondent was considered by the Committee constituted seeking compassionate appointment and after consideration the application was rejected pursuant to a communication dated 15.09.2007 and the reason for rejection of his application is referred as under: Late Shri Ram Bux expired on 07.02.2003 at the age of about 52 years and Eight month survived by his wife and two son including Shri Vidhya Prasad Widow Smt. Badala Devi is getting pension of Rs.3170/- per month and living in own house. 7. 7. In  the  given  case,  either  on the death of his father or on the date on which he submitted his application for compassionate appointment, the Scheme of 1998 was in vogue for seeking compassionate appointment, and as observed he was eligible under the Scheme 1998 but his application remained pending until the new Scheme was introduced on 27.06.2007 and thereafter rejected by a letter dated 15.09.2007. 8. The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the delay in entertaining the  application  for  fair  consideration in seeking employment submitted by the respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants and for the afore- stated  reason,  he  has  been  deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said that delay denies justice and the present respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service. The indigent family who has lost their bread winner in seeking  compassionate  appointment to which one of the dependent was otherwise entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the appellants.” 8(ii). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Malaya  Nanda  Sethy  versus  State  of  Orissa and  others,  2022  SCC  OnLine  SC  684, has outlined that the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged in the relevant Policy  and  the  Rules  have  to  be  achieved  so  as to enable the dependent “family” members who had been left in lurch were facing economic distress and indigencies by providing succor at the earliest, by mandating that an application for compassionate employment has to be considered at the earliest point of time within a period of six months after due completion, so as to bring the State Action in tune  with  mandate  of  fairness  and  reasonableness. Delay was held to frustrate the object of the policy and the action on the application for compassionate appointment should be taken expeditiously instead of keeping it pending for years together, in following terms: “16. Delay was held to frustrate the object of the policy and the action on the application for compassionate appointment should be taken expeditiously instead of keeping it pending for years together, in following terms: “16. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a “family” of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the  employee  while  in  service  and the  basis  or  policy  is  immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. 17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. 18. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such  applications  are  considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The  consideration  must  be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” 8(iii). Stand of Respondents in Reply-Affidavit indicates that the State Authorities have kept the consideration  pending  since  July,  2008  till  day. The State action is highly unwarranted. An obligation vested in the State Authorities to consider the claim for compassionate appointment is not a mere formality. Consideration of claim of a dependent for employment on compassionate grounds has to be effective and by taking it to the logical end within a reasonable time, failing which, malice in law/ fact is inferable. Inaction, slackness speak volumes of apathy by the State towards a dependent who due to indigency and distress had applied for solace so as to eke out a livelihood for himself and the dependent family. In order to curb the unwarranted practice of prolonging consideration or in keeping claims/cases pending indefinitely or for years together the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Prasad and Malaya Nanda Shetty [supra] has outlined that the State Authorities- Respondents are bound to consider the claim for compassionate appointment in terms of extant policy-scheme by taking a final decision within a period of 6 months, from the date of receipt of application complete in all respects. This principle has been blatantly violated, by invoking “non-existent” grounds, only to deprive and deny consideration and resultant appointment on compassionate grounds to petitioner. 8(iv). Once the eligibility in terms of qualifications etc. [at relevant time] was not disputed, therefore, State Authorities were under an obligation to consider the claims of dependent [alike petitioner] in a fair, just, reasonable, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary manner so as to obviate any inference of improper or unfettered discretion. Justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. Reasonableness  is  hall-mark  of  equality. [at relevant time] was not disputed, therefore, State Authorities were under an obligation to consider the claims of dependent [alike petitioner] in a fair, just, reasonable, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary manner so as to obviate any inference of improper or unfettered discretion. Justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. Reasonableness  is  hall-mark  of  equality. Narration of facts on record, establish that State Authorities have given a complete go-bye to the principles of reasonableness for compassionate appointment by keeping the De-facto and De-jure consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment pending since the date petitioner applied for the job and aforesaid consideration is admitted to be pending even as per Reply-Affidavit by the State Authorities. Keeping the  claim  under consideration  has  certainly resulted in depriving the petitioner of a right to know the fate of his claim, despite being eligible coupled with the fact that objection based on Clause 5 (d) of the Policy of Compassionate Appointment dated 18.01.1990 was wrongly and erroneously invoked, just to delay and deny the actual consideration and  upon  consideration  for  resultant  appointment to the petitioner. DELAY MISCONCEIVED WHEN MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION AS YET: 9. Learned State Counsel contends that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the  petitioner  after  a  prolonged  delay  of  about 16 years. Above contention of Learned State Counsel is misconceived, for the reason, that the father of the petitioner died during service on 30.08.2007 and present petitioner applied for job in July 2008. Petitioner  was  constrained  to  file  an  OA  No  199 of 2016 but despite the directions passed by Learned State Administrative Tribunal on 27.09.2016 [Annexure A-4], Respondents-State Authorities have kept  the  matter  pending  on  one  pretext  or  other, by invoking grounds [including Clause 5 (d) of Policy], which have no foundational and legal basis in fact-situation in instant case as discussed herein. Inaction is writ large, forcing the petitioner to face second round of litigation [OA No 6432 of 2017 now registered as CWPOA No.3263 of 2020], which is being decided today. In these circumstances, once petitioner had availed his legal remedies expeditiously and that too within reasonable time [2-3 years] therefore, objection regarding delay is not tenable. Even otherwise, the plea that 16 years have lapsed cannot be a ground to deny consideration and resultant benefit, upon consideration. In these circumstances, once petitioner had availed his legal remedies expeditiously and that too within reasonable time [2-3 years] therefore, objection regarding delay is not tenable. Even otherwise, the plea that 16 years have lapsed cannot be a ground to deny consideration and resultant benefit, upon consideration. Mere pendency of lis cannot be a ground to defeat the substantive claim-rights  of  the  petitioner. Besides  this,  it  is the own case of the State Authorities [as in Reply- Affidavit that matter is under consideration]. In these peculiar facts, the claim, entitlement and right of consideration and resultant appointment cannot be defeated due to mere pendency of instant litigation [since 2017 till day]. In fact-situation of instant case, the stand of the State Authorities and the decision-making process  by  invoking  grounds,  based  on  Clause  5 (d) of Policy when, by operation of law i.e. State Act  and  Rules,  the  elder  brother  was  recognized as  a  separate  family  and  ceased  to  a  part  of the  erstwhile  joint  family  since  07.01.2007  prior to the death of father on 30.08.2007 then, such legal recognition cannot be brought to a naught with intent to deprive the petitioner De-facto and De-jure consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, despite his eligibility, inaccordance with the norms-scheme, which was applicable at the time of death of his father and the date he applied for job, which consideration has been kept pending on “non-existent” facts, is deprecated and is set- aside. Consequently, the directions hereunder shall follow. 10. No other point was raised/argued. DIRECTIONS: 11. In view of above discussion and for the reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  the  instant  petition is allowed, in following terms: (i) Inaction of State Authorities in keeping De-facto  and  De-jure  consideration  of the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment in abeyance despite Court directions  as  in  Annexure  P-4  till  day; is quashed and set aside; (ii) Action of State Authorities in invoking Clause 5 (d) of Policy dated 18.01.1990 and decision making process in treating petitioner as ineligible for job is declared inoperative in fact-situation and is quashed and set-aside; (iii) Term “family” in Policy, including Clause 5(d) has to be construed as subservient to expression “family” under HP Panchayati Raj Act and Rules, which accords legal recognition  and  legal  status  to  “divided -separate family” vis-à-vis “joint family” for all purposes; (iv). Action  of  State  Authorities  in  carving out ineligibility qua the petitioner for compassionate appointment {on account of elder brother, who ceased to be member of  family  of  Late  father  and petitioner w.e.f.  07.01.2007  much  prior  to  death of father on 30.08.2007}; and by acting dehors the intent and object of Statute and on “non-existent grounds” is declared inoperative ; (v). Action  of  State  Authorities  in  directing the  petitioner  to  furnish  income  proof of “family” of elder brother, so as to delay and deny the De-facto and De-jure consideration  of  the  case  of  petitioner for compassionate employment is quashed and set aside; (vi) State Authorities are directed to consider and take the consideration of the case of the petitioner [Tarsem Pathania] and grant resultant appointment, being eligible at relevant time, within two months from today; and (vii) Costs made easy for respective parties. In  aforesaid  terms,  instant  petition  and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.