( 2025:HHC:13093-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.158 of 2019 Decided on: 7th May, 2025 __________________________________________________ Manish Thakur ....Petitioner. Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the respondents: Respondent No.1 already deleted. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. . G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) In the present litigation, the petitioner, in some and substance, seeks consideration for appointment on compassionate basis on account of his father having died on 01.12.2006. The said claim had been rejected by the competent Authority on 15.05.2014 for the second time on merits while noticing the fact that the present applicant as such 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was a B.A. pass and married and was a grown up son and keeping in view the overall assessment, the vacancy as such, was to be offered to more needy candidates, as the total number of vacancies for the year 2009-2010 was 21. The petitioner was recorded to be 32 years of age at that point of time apart from the fact that he had an elder brother of 52 years of age. 2. The Original Application No.063/00120/2014 was dismissed on merits while noting that the applicant had secured only 47 marks which were less than the last candidate to whom the appointment was offered i.e. 55 marks and the Tribunal chose as such not to interfere with the well reasoned order passed in terms of the policy. 3. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner herein is more concerned about the subsequent observations made by the Tribunal in the application, which have bearing on the Counsel also. The counsel pointed out from the record that observations made in the order dated 12.10.2018 in paragraph 4 specifically mentioned that no review application had been filed by the applicant and similarly in paragraph 8 there is an observation that the counsel had made a wrong statement that 3 he had filed an application for review of order dated 28.11.2013. 4. Counsel has submitted that the review application was filed but in the earlier OA 1097-HP-12 pertaining to the same petitioner and therefore, there was a miscommunication while addressing the Tribunal as such and therefore has only prayed that the comments as such which have been recorded against him in the order dated 12.10.2018 be deleted as such. 5. On merits, it has already been noticed that the death took place in the year 2006 and 20 years down the line, we do not see any reason as such, to allow reconsideration of the applicant for the compassionate appointment keeping in view the law laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, whereby it has been held that compassionate appointment is to be provided at the earliest to the needy family on the sudden death of the earning member. The relevant para reads as under:- “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested 4 right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 6. It has already come on record that the petitioner was 31 years of age at the time when the impugned order was passed and was already married and was a graduate, when the impugned order was passed on 15.05.2014. 7. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason as such to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which apparently had not been challenged in the present Writ petition. However, the observations made by the Tribunal against the Counsel in its order dated 12.10.2018 in para 4 and 8 are ordered to be deleted and expunged. 8. The petition stands disposed of alongwith the pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 7th May, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge