2026:HHC:19071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 320 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.05.2026 Narinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate (through V.C) with Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) In the present appeal, consideration is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6642 of 2023, titled as Narinder Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., on 01.03.2025, whereby the writ petition of the present appellant was dismissed. 2. The reasonings which weighed with the learned Single Judge were that the case of the appellant was rejected on 17.05.2013 on the ground of him being unqualified for the post of clerk and merely filing of the subsequent application in 2 2026:HHC:19071 the year 2020 and thereafter, in the year 2022, would be of no relevance the reasons assigned in the second or third applications being rejected as per communication dated 16.11.2022, would not give any fresh cause of action and it was accordingly held that the application was barred by limitation. 3. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290, 4. On 10.10.2025, while issuing notice, we had noted following contention of the counsel for the appellant:- “Inter-alia submits that the petitioner’s case has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the initial application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) and merely by filing the second application dated 17.09.2020, which was rejected on 16.11.2022, the cause of action would not accrue, since it was a case of compassionate appointment. 2. Learned Counsel has brought to our notice that when the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for the post of Clerk was initially rejected on account of lack of requisite qualification of 10+2, he was asked to re-apply for employment for a Class-IV Technical/Non-Technical post under the Employment Assistance Scheme by the Board. It is submitted that the needful had been done, but the file had been misplaced, which 3 2026:HHC:19071 would be clear from letter dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure P-14). It is also submitted that necessary averment was made in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the rejoinder(sic replication). Thus, it is submitted that for the fault of the respondents, the appellant cannot be prejudiced. It is also pointed out that vide letter dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P- 15), explanation had also been sought by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEBL Una from a retired employee of the Board, regarding the record. Notice. Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice for respondent No. 1. Notice be issued to respondents No. 2 & 3, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within one week.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board is not in a position to apprise us as to whether the tentative view taken by us is incorrect. 6. We have also perused the replication. The necessary averments have been made in paragraphs 4 to 7, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that case file has been misplaced by the officials of the respondents, while referring to letter dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure P-14), letter dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-15) and letter dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P-16) and in such circumstances, on the reconstruction of the record of the case of the petitioner had been again re-submitted to the higher authorities vide 4 2026:HHC:19071 letter dated 17.09.2020 (Annexure P-5). This aspect has missed notice of the learned Single Judge. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable as based on incorrect recording of facts. Accordingly, we set aside the said order and remand the case for fresh decision on merits. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 22nd May, 2026 (sanjeev) Judge