IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 905 of 2025 Decided on 10th January, 2025 Sumeet Kumar Bhatia …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Shashi Kiran Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents- State. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued to the 2 respondents/competent authority to consider his case for compassionate appointment from the year 2004 when he applied for the same. (ii) The respondents may be directed to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner, who is 52 years old, is seeking a direction to the respondents to offer him appointment on compassionate ground from the year 2004 when he applied for the post. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrate that the petitioner has faced a trial with regard to the death of his wife. 3. The Court stands informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2007 by the learned Trial Court and appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the High Court in the year 2016 and Special Leave Petition preferred by the State accompanied by an application for condonation of delay was dismissed in terms of Annexure P-2 on 27.2.2017. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be granted the relief as claimed and this is for the reason that the petitioner is now 52 years old and has now become overage. He is very late in approaching the Court. No 3 direction can be passed to the respondents to engage the petitioner on compassionate basis that also from the year 2004. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was accused of killing his wife, which acquisition could not be proved by the prosecution against him. Be that as it may, fact of the matter is that the petitioner at this age can neither be considered for appointment on compassionate basis nor this Court is inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to consider his case from the year 2004. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 10, 2025 (mamta)