2026:HHC:20288- IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8854 of 2022 Reserved on:11.05.2026 Decided on : 27.05.2026 Smt. Kusum Lata .…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Shivom Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “(i). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents for treating her appointment on regular basis w.e.f. 4.11.2010 alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Sh. Piar Singh, who was working as a Peon, in the Department of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20288- Excise and Taxation, died in harness on 09.02.2008. After his death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Peon on 04.11.2010 and she continued to serve as such till her services were regularized on 23.08.2017. The contention of the petitioner is that she should have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of her appointment and not on daily wage basis and it is in this backdrop, the present petition has been filed, praying for the reliefs, as already enumerated hereinabove. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent- Department is that the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment on daily wage basis, without any protest and she continued to serve as such till she was regularized in the year 2017. It is further the stand of the Department that the petition was filed belatedly after 13 years and therefore, the same is hit by delay and laches. It is further the stand of the Department, as has been contended by learned Additional Advocate General also that the petitioner accepted the appointment on daily wage basis after fully understanding the terms and conditions thereof and therefore also, she is not 3 2026:HHC:20288- entitled for any relief as prayed for in the petition on the ground of estoppel. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died in harness while serving as a regular Class-IV employee in the respondent-Department. The petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis after the death of her husband, as a Class-IV employee, but on daily wage basis. The appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis was in terms of the policy in vogue at the relevant time of offering the appointment to the kith and kin of the deceased-government employee. The instructions in vogue with regard to the offer of appointment on compassionate basis at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner and at the time when the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis were not to the effect that the kith and kin of the deceased-employees Class-IV regular were to be offered appointment on daily wage basis. In light of this fact, as the policy did not provide that the kith and kin of the 4 2026:HHC:20288- deceased employee were to be appointed on compassionate basis on daily wage basis, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner could not have been appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2010 on daily wage basis. 6. Presently, the appointment on compassionate basis is governed by a Policy that has been brought into force by the Government on 07.03.2019. The office memorandum, in terms whereof this Policy was brought into force, reads as under:- “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Policy for providing 'Compassionate Employment' and delegation of Powers to department(s) for disposal of cases of compassionate appointments. 1. The 'Compassionate Employment Policy' of the Government was framed/circulated by the Department of Personnel vide its OFFICE MEMORANDUM No. Per. (AP-II)-F-(4)-4/89 dated 18.01.1990 & subsequent amendments were made thereunder, from time to time. A "Revised Policy for providing 'Compassionate Employment and also delegation of Powers to department(s) for disposal" as 5 2026:HHC:20288- at ANNEXURE-A is enclosed herewith for information and strict compliance of all concerned. 2. All the pending & new compassionate appointment cases may be regulated as per this OFFICE MEMORANDUM. on This Office Memoraridum/instruction may also be www.himachal.nic.in/finance under the 3. seen "Expenditure." 7. A perusal of this office memorandum demonstrates that this revised Policy for providing compassionate appointment was in supersession of the earlier policy framed on 18.01.1990. In terms of the present Policy, Clause 4 of which deals with the post, to which, such appointment can be made, reads as under:- “4) POST TO WHICH SUCH APPOINTMENT CAN BE MADE: The compassionate appointment is to be provided basically in the department to which the deceased Govt. employee or the medically retired Government, employee belonged, subject to fulfilment of minimum, educational qualifications and such skills as are prescribed for the post. In exceptional cases, where the 6 2026:HHC:20288- post does not exist in the Department concerned, the said Department may recommend appointment in another department, to the Finance Department, subject to availability of vacancies in the concerned Department, On receiving the request, Finance Department will send the matter to the concerned Department to consider the appointment. The appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only to the lowest rung of class-IV and Class-III posts. The compassionate employment can be given against Class-III posts on Contract basis, in case the applicant has requisite qualifications prescribed for the job as per R & P Rules. In case the deceased was a daily waged worker, the employment assistance shall be given on daily wage basis only. Compassionate employment to be given against on Class-IV posts will only be on Daily Wage basis. Under no circumstances, appointment(s) should be made against the Class-III posts, which require technical/professional qualifications.” 8. Thus, in terms of this Clause, the appointment on compassionate grounds is to be made only to the lowest rung of Class-IV and Class-III posts. The compassionate 7 2026:HHC:20288- employment can be given against Class-III posts on contract basis, in case, the applicant has requisite qualifications prescribed in the R & P Rules. Further, in case, the deceased- employee was a daily waged worker, the employment assistance shall be given on daily wage basis only. This clause further provides that compassionate employment to be given against on Class-IV posts will only be on Daily Wage basis. This Court is not making any observation on the correctness of this Clause because the same is not the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 9. When the father of the petitioner died and she was offered appointment, the 1990 policy as amended from time to time was in force. Now, this Court would refer to the pari materia provision which was there in the earlier policy dated 18.01.1990, which dealt with the posts, to which, such appointment could be made. Clause 4 of the earlier policy reads as under:- “4. Posts to which such appointments can be made:- The appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only to the lowest rung of class IV and class II posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 300-430 (now revised to Rs. 750-1350) and 400-600 or 400-660 (now revised to Rs.950- 1800 respectively). Class-II jobs would include all 8 2026:HHC:20288- equivalent jobs including technical posts and teachers (Class-III) in the scale of Rs. 950-1800 only.” 10. Therefore, whereas present policy is categoric that the appointment against the Class-III post may be on contract basis but it says that as far as the appointment on a Class-IV posts is concerned, the same is to be on daily wage basis, however, there was no such condition in the earlier policy dated 18.01.1990 that the appointments against the Class-IV posts have to be made on daily wage basis only. It is pertinent to mention that initially when the 1990 policy came into force, there was no provision for the grant of appointment on compassionate basis to the kith and kin of a worker, who died while serving but on daily wage basis. Subsequently, the policy was amended and liberalized to include the kith and kin of such incumbents also but with the condition that they were to be provided appointment only on daily wage basis. However, this Court again reiterates that there was no such condition with regard to the kith and kin of those employees, who died in harness while serving on regular basis. Therefore, the act of the respondent of offering the appointment to the petitioner on daily wage basis is without any foundation and is bad in law. 9 2026:HHC:20288- 11. As at the relevant time, Department was otherwise offering appointment on contractual basis, the petitioner should have been offered appointment on contract basis at least, if not on regular basis. Denial thereof to the petitioner on the ground that she accepted the terms and conditions, on which the appointment was offered to her, does not satisfy this Court for the reason that the bargaining power of the petitioner cannot be equated with the bargaining power of the employer in the present case and obviously, in the peculiar facts where the petitioner had lost her husband, she accepted the offer of appointment on compassionate basis on whatever terms the same was offered to her. She indeed was made to sign the agreement on dotted lines and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is precluded from raising the issue on the ground of estoppel. 12. As far as the issue of delay and laches is concerned, judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, takes care of that wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- 10 2026:HHC:20288- “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 e 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 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 11 2026:HHC:20288- 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.” 13. In the present case, had the petitioner been appointed on contract basis in the year 2010, then she would have been regularized earlier than the date, on which the petitioner was regularised, it cannot be said that the present petition is hit by delay and laches as the wrong is continuing and of course, the delay can be taken care of by observing that monetary benefits, to which, the petitioner will be entitled to, can be restricted accruable to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. 14. Therefore, as the act of the respondents of offering the appointment to the petitioner on daily wage basis being contrary to the instructions in vogue at the relevant time is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis w.e.f. 04.11.2010, is held to be bad in law and it is directed that the appointment of the 12 2026:HHC:20288- petitioner w.e.f. 04.11.2010, be construed on contract basis and she thereafter be regularised in terms of the policy of the government to regularise the contract employees in vogue at the relevant time. This will be inclusive of all consequential benefits, however, the monetary benefits will be notional as up to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition and thereafter the same will be actual. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) May 27, 2026 Judge (narender)