2026:HHC:16739 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5966 of 2025 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Meena Devi … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, Shimla … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the impugned office Memorandum dated 3.3.2025, Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice. (ii) an That appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent that the petitioner may be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of her appointment, i.e. date on which she was appointed on contract basis by restricting the benefits to the same extent as has been restricted with respect to other similarly situated persons vide judgment dated 3.4.2024 passed in CWP No.2801/2021. (iii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent that after considering the petitioner to have been appointed on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16739 regular basis from her initial date of appointment on contract basis, she be given further eligible benefits with respect to the period for the purpose of seniority as also for promotion purposes apart from actual monetary benefits on and with effect from April, 2024, the date of passing of the judgment in CWP No. 2801/2021, along with arrears and interest @ 9% p.a.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with the respondent-Department in the year 2003 and he was, thereafter, promoted to the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 07.11.2013. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 16.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis as a Clerk vide Office Order dated 02.01.2017. The petitioner accepted the said appointment on contract basis as she had already undergone a lot of agony and was not in a position to bargain with the employer to give her regular appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Authorities, requesting them to treat her appointment on regular basis from the initial date of her appointment. In the meanwhile, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide Office Order dated 01.04.2020. Some of the persons similarly situated as the petitioner who were appointed on compassionate basis on contract, approached this Court by way of CWP No.2801 of 2021, with the prayer that their appointment should be treated as regular from the initial date of their appointment. The petition was allowed by this Court on 03.04.2024 and it was ordered that the petitioner therein 3 2026:HHC:16739 shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of their appointment, i.e. the date when they were appointed on contract basis. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Authorities with a representation, but her representation was rejected vide Annexure P-7, on the ground of delays and latches and hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.2801 of 2021, titled Prince Sharma and others Versus Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, decided on 03.04.2024. He submitted that as the petitioner is similarly situated, relief cannot be denied to her on the grounds mentioned in the impugned Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Vidhan Sabha submitted that though it is not in dispute that the petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioners in CWP 2801 of 2021, but fact of the matter remains that as the petitioner was a fence-sitter, therefore, she is not entitled for similar treatment. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the matter, as to whether a compassionate appointee in Vidhan Sabha is entitled for regular appointment from the initial date of appointment is no more res integra, this Court finds that in the peculiar facts of this case, the 4 2026:HHC:16739 act of the respondents of not conceding to the request of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in CWP No.2801 of 2021 were also compassionate appointees, who were appointed with the respondent-Vidhan Sabha on contract basis like the petitioner. Their plea that their appointment from the initial date should be on regular basis was accepted by this Court, meaning hereby that the act of the respondent-Vidhan Sabha of not granting regular appointment to compassionate appointees was held to be bad in law. That being so, the act of the respondent-Vidhan Sabha in the present case also of not appointing the petitioner on regular basis from the initial date of her appointment is per se bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The relevant Paras of CWP No.2801 of 2021 (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:- “….5. Annexure P-1 is the Office Memorandum adopted by the Vidhan Sabha which deals with appointment of the wards of deceased Government servant on compassionate basis, who dies in harness. As per these rules, there is no provision that appointment, that is to be made on compassionate basis, shall be on contract basis. The petitioners alongwith Writ Petition have appended the copy of Office Order dated 20.03.2013, passed by the respondent-Vidhan Sabha, in which, in compliance to the order passed by this Court in CWP-11262/6-3/2012, dated 28.01.2013, the respondent-Board has offered appointment to one Sh. 5 2026:HHC:16739 Sikander Negi, against the post of Clerk on regular basis and not on contract basis. Annexure P-4 has been referred to in para No.8 of the Writ Petition, in which there is a specific averment made by the petitioners that the Vidhan Sabha has been providing employment on compassionate grounds in all cases on regular basis against the available posts. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to this para of the petition demonstrates that it stands mentioned therein that the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, for the post of Clerk as were applicable at the time when the petitioners were appointed, were to the effect that the posts were to be filled in 70% by direct recruitment on regular basis or by recruitment on contract basis, as the case may be. However, in this para of the reply, it has not been denied that appointment of the official referred to in Annexure P-4 was made on regular basis. 6. Not only this, the policy for employment on compassionate basis which has been adopted by the respondent- Vidhan Sabha incidentally does not speaks of making appointment on compassionate grounds, on contract basis. Even after the amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, relevant for appointment against the post of Clerks, there was no corresponding amendment carried out anywhere, either in the Compassionate Policy or in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to the effect that in the event of appointment on compassionate ground, the same shall be on contract basis initially. 7. This Court has also perused judgment dated 05.11.2022, passed by this Court in Sikander Negi 6 2026:HHC:16739 versus H.P. Vidhan Sabha i.e. CWP No. 11262 of 2011 and a perusal thereof demonstrates that therein this Court had directed the respondent Vidhan Sabha to consider the case of the petitioner therein for appointment on contract basis for the post of Clerk, in accordance with R&P Rules, with further direction that the appointment shall be with effect from the date when the petitioner therein was initially appointed as a Clerk and it was in compliance thereto that order Annexure P4 was passed, offering appointment to Sikander Negi for the post of Clerk on regular basis. Now incidentally this office order is dated 20.03.2013 and the rules which have been relied upon the respondent to deny benefit of regular appointment to the petitioners on compassionate ground, were invogue at the relevant time. In fact, the notification which is appended with the reply as Annexure R-2, is dated 04.12.2008 and even in the case of Sikander Negi, the death of his father took place on 03.11.2010 after the issuance of the said notification. Therefore, also, the respondent- Vidhan Sabha cannot be allowed to apply different yardsticks for similarly situated persons. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Annexure P-11, Annexure P-12 and Annexure P-13, in terms whereof the prayer of the petitioners to grant them seniority from the initial date of their appointment was denied, is set aside and it is directed that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of their appointment, i.e., the date on which they were appointed on contract basis, but this will be with the rider that the same shall entail only notional monitory benefits, till the date of filing of Writ Petition. Said period, shall be counted for the purpose of seniority 7 2026:HHC:16739 of the petitioners in the cadre as well as for promotional purposes. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.” 8. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said findings. As far as the issue of delays and latches is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others Versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, has been pleased to hold that wherein the issue of delays and latches is in a case where the wrong is continuing, as it is in the present case, then the same cannot be fatal to the case. The High Court can in such like cases restrict monetary benefits as from three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. The relevant Paras of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Versus Tarsem Singh (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:- “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the 8 2026:HHC:16739 issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 9. In this case, as the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis is not sustainable in light of the judgment of this Court in CWP No.2801 of 2021 (supra), obviously this constitutes as a continuing wrong. Accordingly, this Court is not precluded from interfering with the illegal act of the respondent on the ground of delay and latches. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of offering contract appointment to the petitioner who was appointed on compassionate basis in violation of the Rules in vogue is held to be bad, as the Recruitment & Promotion Rules prevailing at the relevant time, which dealt with offer of appointment to Clerks, did not provide that appointment to be made on compassionate basis shall be on contract basis. It is ordered that the 9 2026:HHC:16739 petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of her appointment on contract basis. This will be with all consequential benefits, but with the rider that the benefits shall be notional as far as monetary benefits are concerned, till the filing of the petition and thereafter, as from the date of the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits also. The service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner alongwith regular service shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority of the petitioner in the Cadre for promotional purposes. 11. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2026 (Rishi)