2025:HHC:25576 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7202 of 2021 Decided on: 29.07.2025. __________________________________________________________ Nazeer Mohd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present case is taken up on the ground that an application has been filed for early hearing i.e. CMP No.17281 of 2025, as the case pertains to the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. 2. Keeping in view the above, we allow the application and take up the matter for hearing on Board today itself. 3. The application stands disposed of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:25576 - 2 - accordingly. CWP No.7202 of 2021 4. Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. 5. While deciding the Original Application No.102 of 2018, wherein a challenge was raised to the letter dated 14.02.2017 [Annexure A-4], the Tribunal rejected the case of petitioner and came to the conclusion, while taking into account Clause 8 of the Policy of Department of Personnel, dated 18.01.1990, that the representation/ request for compassionate appointment had to be made within three years from the date of attaining the age of 18 years. It was held that the petitioner had filed the request on 09.04.2013 instead of 04.04.2013, therefore, there was a lapse of five days, and accordingly, dismissed the Original Application. Clause 8 of the aforesaid policy dated 18.01.1990 reads as under: “8. Belated requests for compassionate appointment: Requests for grant of employment assistance should be received in the Department concerned within three years of the death of the Government servant. In 2025:HHC:25576 - 3 - case where none of the sons/daughters of the deceased servant attain majority (age of 18 years) at the time of the death of the government servant, the time limit for receipt of request for attainment of age of 21 years by the elder son/unmarried daughter. No relaxation will be allowed in entertaining requests beyond the above age except in the cases of sons/unmarried daughter/widow of deceased government servants belonging to the difficult areas as laid down in the Transfer Policy.” 6. Counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the said Clause and pointed out that there is an exception therein permitting relaxation of the strict timeline provided in the Clause itself for requests beyond the prescribed time period for the dependants, who were minor in cases where the deceased Government servants belonged to a difficult area as provided in the transfer policy. It was accordingly, contended while referring to the proforma filled-in, that the date of death of Government employee was 06.12.2008, and he was working as a regular Beldar. The employment sought was for the post of Daily Waged Beldar. It is further pointed out that the declaration was submitted to the Assistant Engineer, Tissa Sub-Division, HPPWD, Chamba Division, 2025:HHC:25576 - 4 - which is stated to be one of the difficult areas as per the transfer policy. It is thus submitted that this aspect was never examined by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. 7. A perusal of the order under challenge dated 14.02.2017 before the Tribunal shows that the rejection was on the ground that the appellant applied after four years and four months from the death of the deceased Government servant. Apparently, even the Superintending Engineer, while rejecting the case, did not take into consideration the fact that in case the petitioner was a minor, certain relaxation could have been given to him. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition that his age at the time of the death of his father was 16 years, 8 months, and 2 days. 9. Keeping in view the above and the fact that the writ petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father on 06.12.2008, who was working as a regular Beldar and that he had only applied for the post of Daily Waged Beldar in a difficult area as per the transfer policy, we are of the opinion that the authority concerned committed an error in rejecting the case on different 2025:HHC:25576 - 5 - parameters. The authority lost sight of the fact that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family, which is apparent in the present case which could have only been done after the petitioner attained the age of majority as per Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy. It is further provided in the policy that certain relaxation can be granted if the employee was working in a difficult area. This aspect was also overlooked by the Tribunal. 10. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed is not sustainable and the case of petitioner is liable to be reconsidered. 11. Keeping in view the overall purpose of the policy by which a window has been kept open by the State itself to provide help to the needy, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on technical grounds is not sustainable. 12. Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition, quash and set-aside the communication dated 07.02.2015 [Annexure P-4] and the order dated 01.07.2019 [Annexure P-5] passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla and direct the 2025:HHC:25576 - 6 - competent authorities to reconsider the matter, keeping in view the application filed (Annexure P-2) and the observations made above, within a period of three months. 13. In light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 29, 2025 [Shivender/Bhardwaj]