IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3423 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Raj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through instant petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 23.1.2023, issued under the signature of General Manager (Admn), Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, whereby application made by the petitioner herein for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father came to be rejected on the ground that he is Non-Bonafide Himachali. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it is not in dispute that late father of the petitioner was serving in the respondent Corporation and he died in harness, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondent to reject the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the - 2 - petitioner is not a Bonafide Himachali. While making this Court peruse judgment dated 26.7.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Principal Division Bench in CWP No. 4304 of 2023, titled Sandeep Kaur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, learned counsel for the petitioner states that afore contention of Bonafide Himachali for compassionate appointment in the State of Himachal Pradesh has been already negated. If it is so, order laid challenge in the instant proceedings being totally contrary to the law otherwise, deserves to be set-aside. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under: “16) According to the petitioner, her father, due to his low salary, could not construct or buy a house in the State of Himachal Pradesh, that her permanent residence is at her native place at Bharatgarh, Post Office, Tehsil and District Ropar, Punjab, and Character Certificate can be issued by the authorities where she is residing. Since her village is in the State of Punjab and in that State, Character Certificates are issued only by the Police Department, and since the petitioner had produced such certificate from the Senior Superintendent of Police, we are of the opinion that the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to produce a Character Certificate issued by Executive Magistrate or Tehsildar has no legs to stand because the petitioner cannot be compelled to comply with what is not possible. 17) There is a maxim in law by name ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’ which means that the law does not compel a man to do what is not possible for him to perform. 18) This principle has been followed and re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and others (1999) 8 SCC 266; Mohammed Gazi Vs. - 3 - State of M.P. & others (2000) 4 SCC 342; and Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. & others (2002) 5 SCC 54. 19) As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioner should provide a certificate of Bonafide Resident of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the petitioner has contended that though initially Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura Public Employment (Requirement As To Residence) Rules, 1954 were in force in the State of Himachal Pradesh which required production of such certificates, these Rules were deleted by the State Government after 20.04.1974. 20) It is further contended that insistence on such a certificate would violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and even the main clauses of the policy dt. 07.03.2019 being relied on by the respondent do not require such a Bonafide Himachali Certificate. 21) We agree with both these contentions raised by the petitioner’s Counsel. As per Art.16(2) of the Constitution no citizen can be discriminated on basis of residence. So insisting that petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents after having perused aforesaid judgment fairly admits factum with regard to negation of plea with regard to Bonafide Himachali as detailed herein above. 4. If the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court is read in entirety, it clearly suggests that in terms of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India, no person can be discriminated on the basis of residence. Once it is not in dispute that deceased father of - 4 - the petitioner was employee of the Respondent-Corporation and there is provision in the policy to provide compassionate appointment to the family member of the deceased employee, such right, if any, of her/him cannot be permitted to be defeated on the basis of residence. 5. Faced with aforesaid situation, Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation fairly states that application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment can be considered afresh taking note of the afore judgment. 6. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply and accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner afresh taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, as detailed herein above, expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law be he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. March 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge