IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1780 of 2023 Decided on: 18th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atul Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Sh. Jagdish Chand-petitioner’s father had been serving as Project Operator in the respondent-Information & Public Relations Department. He died while in service on 09.10.1994. Petitioner was minor at that time. After attaining the age of majority, he applied for compassionate employment on 20.07.2009. Respondent-Department vide its communication dated 09.08.2010 informed the petitioner about rejection of his case by the State Government. No speaking order accompanied the aforesaid communication. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Petitioner again represented to the respondents on 15.03.2011 for employment on compassionate grounds. He eventually instituted CWP No.3198 of 2011 in relation to the aforesaid subject matter. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.04.2015 with direction to the respondents to examine petitioner’s representation dated 15.03.2011 and decide the same within six weeks. The respondents vide their order dated 03.08.2015, rejected the representation on the ground that petitioner’s case does not fall under the income criteria fixed by the State under the compassionate employment policy. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted an original application, bearing O.A. No.3027 of 2015, before the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘learned Tribunal’). The original application was disposed of on 30.06.2016 with directions to the respondents to examine the matter in light of the decision rendered in Surinder Kumar versus State of H.P. and others2. It was also observed that the aforesaid decision would abide by the outcome of the Special Leave Petition that was pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court at that time against Surinder Kumar2. Respondents were directed to verify the facts in light of the decision in Surinder Kumar2 2 CWP No.9094 of 2013, decided on 06.10.2015 3 within a period of four months from the date of the judgment to be passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter. Relevant portion of order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the erstwhile learned Tribunal reads as under:- “3. The applicant claims appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the applicant, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.9094 of 2013, Surinder Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 06.10.2015. 4. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. Learned Additional Advocate General has informed that the State has filed SLP against the above mentioned decision. Therefore, it is made clear that the implementation of the judgment referred to above would depend on the outcome of the decision in SLP, pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The needful action, after verifying the facts will be taken within a period of four months from the date of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The applicant will produce a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the transferred application before the 2nd respondent/ competent authority.” Hon’ble Apex Court decided the aforesaid Special Leave Petition on 17.01.2019. The respondents vide their office letter dated 20.04.2022, rejected the case of the petitioner as under:- “It is to inform you that your case for employment on compassionate grounds was sent to the Government vide letter No.5-53/76-Pub-dated: 18th July 2009 and the Government vide its letter No.Pub-B(2)-3/2009 dated: 01st June 2010 rejected the same as it was not found a case of indigent circumstances. You had already been informed in this regard vide letter No.5- 38/2009-Pub-5714 dated: 09th August 2010 (Copy enclosed).” 4 Petitioner feels aggrieved against the decision of the respondents as communicated to him under office letter dated 20.04.2022 and hence, has preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Erstwhile learned Tribunal had specifically directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for employment on compassionate grounds in light of the decision rendered in Surinder Kumar2. The respondents were to take the decision after the disposal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The office letter dated 20.04.2022 simply rejects the case of the petitioner. Speaking order has not been passed by the respondents. The respondents were duty bound to give reasons for rejecting petitioner’s case after taking into consideration the decision in Surinder Kumar2, which apparently has not been done. For this reason alone, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned decision, as communicated by the respondents in their office letter dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-12), is quashed and set aside, with directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for 5 employment on compassionate grounds afresh in consonance with the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the erstwhile learned Tribunal in O.A. No.3027 of 2015 in accordance with law. Fresh order be passed within four weeks from today. The order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh