( 2025:HHC:28235 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 4653 of 2020. Reserved on: 5 th August, 2025. Decided on: 20 th August, 2025. Chaman Singh .... Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for the post of clerk on the compassionate grounds on account of the death of the father of the applicant from the day the vacancy of the clerk was available or the date other persons were appointed with seniority and consequential benefits. ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining tot he case of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. iii) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) respondent be directed consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on Class II post from the date of initial appointment or from the date similarly situated persons were appointed as Clerk on the Class-II post on compassionate grounds and from the date vacancy was available with the respondent, with all consequential benefits like seniority and financial benefits with up to date interest” 2. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Clerk under the policy of State Government for providing employment assistance to the dependents of the government servant, who died in harness, leaving their family in indigent circumstances. 3. The scrutiny committee, after scrutinizing the case of the petitioner, found him fit for appointment. However, the petitioner remained without appointment, forcing him to file CWP No. 3568 of 2015 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.10.2015 passed in a bunch of matters with CWP No.9094 of 2013, titled Surender Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., being the lead case. 4. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with observations that though the petitioner had applied to the respondents for his appointment on compassionate ground but the respondents had not taken 3 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) any decision thus far. Accordingly, direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the findings of the Court on points No. (i) to (ix) of the policy on compassionate appointments. 5. Having failed to get compliance of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed contempt petition being COPC No. 454 of 2016. The case of the petitioner was thereafter decided vide order dated 14.03.2017 by the first respondent and consequently COPC No.454 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court on 18.05.2017 in following terms: - “Perusal of compliance affidavit dated 22.3.2017, filed by Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur Forest Circle, Bilaspur, H.P., clearly suggests that the directions contained in judgment dated 6.10.2015, passed by this Court in CWP No.3568 of 2014, stands duly complied with. Rather perusal of order dated 8.2.2017 (Annexure R-1) annexed with the aforesaid compliance affidavit suggests that speaking order, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, has been passed by the authorities concerned, on the representation, having been filed by the petitioner. 2. Consequently, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to lay challenge, if any, to the consideration order passed by the authorities, by way of independent proceedings. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 4 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) 6. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition for the reliefs as noticed above. 7. The respondents have contested the petition by filing the reply. It has been admitted that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 30.06.2006 and on the happening of such event, the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds. As per the respondents, while the case of the petitioner was under consideration of the government, it was decided by the State Government vide office memorandum dated 10.11.2008 that in order to provide compassionate employment to the eligible persons, 5% vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota in Class III-IV posts should be reserved for this category. There were no vacancies of Class-III employees which could be made available for the appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground, hence, the name of petitioner could not be considered under 5% quota. 8. It has further been submitted that the State Government vide Principal Secretary (Finance) letter dated 15.07.2010 decided to consider the case of those applicants on compassionate ground, who were either widow or orphan, therefore, again the case of the petitioner did not fall in priority sector. 5 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) 9. However, the petitioner was offered letter of appointment as Class-IV in Education department on compassionate ground, which had been accepted by him. It is also the case of the respondents that R&P Rules for the post of Clerk were amended in the year 2011 and the minimum educational qualification was prescribed as 10+2 while the petitioner was only a matriculate. 10. Rest of the contents of the petition have been denied in generality. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 12. Noticeably, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2018. The petitioner had already accepted the offer of appointment as Class-IV in the department of education vide letter dated 25.08.2015. Admittedly, CWP No. 3568 of 2015 filed by the petitioner before this court was pending adjudication at the time of acceptance of appointment to Class IV post by him. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he had accepted Class-IV appointment on daily wage basis in the education department by raising any reservation or reserving his right in pending CWP No. 3568 of 2015. 6 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) 13. Another fact, which the petitioner has not been able to dispute is that he did not disclose to the Court, at the time of disposal of CWP No.3568 of 2015, the factum of his appointment as Class-IV in the education department. The above omission gets authentication from the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench while disposing of CWP No.3568 of 2015 to the effect that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was still pending. Thus, the petitioner had clearly suppressed the material fact from the Court at the time of disposal of CWP No.3568 of 2015. 14. Thereafter, the petitioner filed COPC No.454 of 2016 and apparently again the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he had joined as Class-IV in education department. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in COPC as reproduced above again fortifies the above observation of this Court. 15. Evidently, COPC was disposed of keeping in view the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the first respondent. The necessary inference would be that the Court while exercising the contempt jurisdiction was satisfied about the compliance of directions issued in CWP No. 3568 of 2015 7 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) 16. It being so, the question arises whether the petitioner could again raise the issue by way of instant petition in the form as has been done? The answer cannot be but in negative for the reasons, firstly, that petitioner had accepted Class-IV post in education department way back in 2015 without any reservation, secondly, that the satisfaction of petitioner with order dated 18.05.2017 passed in COPC No. 454 of 2016 amounted to his acceptance as to compliance of direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3568 of 2015. 17. Viewed from another angle, the judgment dated 06.10.2015 in CWP No. 3568 of 2015 was secured by the petitioner by suppressing material fact that he had already been appointed on compassionate ground on Class-IV post in education department. The first respondent vide his order dated 14.03.2017 Annexure A-17 has clearly noticed the factum of petitioner having been appointed as Class-IV in education department as one of the reasons for rejecting his case. This part of the order dated 14.03.2017 having remained unchallenged, the petitioner cannot continue to rake up a false grievance of not having been offered appointment to the post of Clerk. It is further clearly reflected from the order Annexure A-17 that there were justifiable 8 ( 2025:HHC:28235 ) reasons for providing the petitioner with appointment on compassionate ground as Class-IV instead of Class-III and again no challenge has been laid in the instant petition to such findings. 18. Petitioner has further not been able to justify his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on Class-III post. The allegation of the petitioner that similarly situated persons had been provided appointments on Class-III post by the respondents has remained unsubstantiated. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity and for succeeding in the instant petition, he had to show the existence of a legal right in his favour and its violation by the respondents. 19. In result, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with no order as to the costs. 20. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 20th August, 2025. (jai)