( 2025:HHC:13094 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 102 of 2025 and LPA No. 214 of 2025 Decided on: 6th May, 2025 ________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Petitioners/appellants. Versus Sh.Radha Mohan ...Respondent ________________________________________________________ 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/appellant: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 102 of 2025 The delay of 230 days’ in filing the present appeal is condoned, keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit of Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 214 of 2025 2. The consideration sought in the present Appeal is to the Writ petition bearing No.4901 of 2022 being allowed, wherein directions have been issued to consider the case of the petitioner/respondent herein in terms of policy of year 2012 expeditiously for compassionate 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - appointment, while quashing the order dated 19.05.2022. 3. The learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ petition noticed that the father of the petitioner had died in year 2012, hence his case was required to be considered in terms of the policy in vogue in 2012 and not as per the revised policy of the year 2019 while placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 707, wherein it was held that merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after amendment, would not entitle the employer as such to take call on the amended policy. 4. The learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner as such had not applied within the timeframe fixed in the earlier policy and has applied beyond the age of 21 years, which is not permissible and therefore, the petitioner having applied for the job at the age of 21 years, his case is not liable to considered under the old policy, also. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would also go on to show that much water has flowed under the bridge and said argument as such had already been rejected. 6. The initial rejection of the case of the petitioner was on 23.08.2017 on the ground that he had applied for the job after lapse of - 3 - three years time period and no relaxation could provided as he had to apply at the age of 21 years. The petitioner had challenged the said decision by filing CWP No. 5652 of 2020. The learned Single Judge noticed that there is clause 8 in the policy framed by the Government of H.P. as such, which provides for relaxation, in case the deceased government servant belongs to difficult area as laid down in the transfer policy. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner belongs to village Ribba, Tehsil Morang, District Kinnaur and to Scheduled Tribe category and is from hard area, directed consideration while quashing the earlier order dated 23.08.2017 and directing the appointment to be done strictly in accordance with the relevant applicable policy, within a period of two months from the date of the order. When the writ petitioner sought to execute the said order by way of Execution petition No. 142 of 2022, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) came to be passed and the said Execution petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.06.2022. 7. It is thus apparent that the said issue already stands decided against the State and direction to reconsider has already been issued. Reconsideration has now been done and the case has been rejected vide impugned order (Annexure P-4), while relying upon policy(ies) dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019 by falling back on the income criteria as such that the annual income of the petitioner is amounting to Rs.2,58,000/- - 4 - which is higher than the required income. 8. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court as such in Bheemesh (supra) to grant the said benefit on the ground that the consideration has to be done as per the policy prevalent on the date of death, otherwise different criteria would come up, if the case was to be processed and taken up on the different dates, even if death had taken place of two different employees on the same date and therefore the employer as such would be at liberty to deny the benefit to one and grant the said benefit to other. 9. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view in view of the binding precedent laid down by the Apex Court, which has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 10. Resultantly, no case is made out to interference in the well reasoned order and the same is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 6th May, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge