2026:HHC:22518-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.4431 of 2020 Decided on: 16th June, 2026 Uploaded on: 16th June, 2026 Sh. Shishu Pal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has sought direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for employment on compassionate grounds as Clerk as per ‘Kith and Kin Policy’ of the Government, since his father was serving with the respondents and died in harness on 26.12.2010. 2. The father of the petitioner was working as Beldar on regular basis with the respondents since 1994 and was regularized in the year 2007. Unfortunately, he died on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 26.12.2010. After the demise of his father, the mother of the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the month of March 2011. However, her request was turned down on the grounds that she was not only illiterate, but had also crossed the age required for employment. 3. The petitioner after attaining majority, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 10.11.2014 (Annexure P-3), who belongs to Scheduled Caste category. However, when his claim was not considered, a legal notice dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) was issued by him to respondents No.2 and 3. The Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD Rohru, replied to the said legal notice on 20.08.2019 (Annexure P-9) stating therein that the case of the petitioner has been received back in his office from the higher authority with the remarks that the same was required to be considered as per the latest policy of the Government. The case of the petitioner has again been submitted to respondent No.3 on 28.06.2019 for further transmission to the concerned authority 3 through proper channel, which is still awaited. Since no decision was taken by the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, he has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for employment on compassionate grounds as Clerk as per the ‘Kith and Kin Policy’ of the State Government. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that neither legal nor fundamental rights of the petitioner had ever been infringed by the respondent- Department. The petition is not legally maintainable. It has further been averred that a claim for compassionate appointment is subject to the availability of a sanctioned post, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondents have not denied the factum that the father of the petitioner was working as Beldar on a regular basis with the respondents, who expired on 26.12.2010. The respondents have also admitted that the mother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, which came to be rejected on the 4 grounds that she was illiterate and had also crossed the age required for employment. It has further been averred that the case of the petitioner was submitted for consideration as per instructions issued by the Finance Department, vide Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2019. His case was considered by the Departmental Scrutiny Committee constituted at Government level, which observed that the case was incomplete for want of old proforma and marital status and returned the same, vide letter dated 04.09.2020. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 21.10.2020 to re-submit the claim with old proforma and marital status, however till date, he has not submitted the same despite being asked to furnish the requisite documents and the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner 5 was working with the respondents as Beldar on regular basis and died in harness on 26.12.2010. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the death of father of the petitioner, his mother had applied for consideration of her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, which came to be rejected on the grounds that she was illiterate and had crossed the age required for employment. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and the respondents were considering his claim as per the office memorandum dated 07.03.2019, which was the fresh policy for granting appointments on compassionate grounds. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2020) 7 SCC 617, titled, N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and others, has already held that the claim for offering the appointment on compassionate basis should be considered under the policy, which was prevailing on the date of death of the government employee. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has followed the aforementioned judgment, in LPA No.797 of 2025, titled, 6 State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sarita Devi and has held as under. The relevant paras of the judgment reads as under:- “14. In spite of that the attitude of the State to pursue the litigation continue. The law as such has also been relied upon by the State primarily, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2020) 7 SCC 617, wherein it has been held that consideration should be done as per the policy in force. 15. However, counsel for the respondent has fallen back on another three-Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496, decided on 29.09.2020, subsequent of the judgment of N.C. Santhosh case (supra), which was decided on 04.03.2020. The observations in subsequent judgment as such would go on to show that it is the date of demise which has to be seen, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- “16. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. Insofar as providing succour is concerned, unfortunately, since the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect of providing succour to the family immediately does not survive. We have still examined the matter in the conspectus of the applicable policy. It is not in question that the Policy prevailing was one dated 18- 8-2008. Clause 12.1 clearly prescribes 7 workcharge/contingency fund and daily wager employees from compassionate appointment. The gravemen of the submission of the respondent is based on the classification of his late father as a permanent employee on account of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent regularisation of his service.” 16. It is also to be noticed that in the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Bheemesh (2021) 20 SCC 707, while taking into consideration the three- Judge Bench judgment of N.C. Santhosh case (supra) another two Judge of the Apex Court as such had come to the conclusion that the fixed factor is only the date of death that does not change and therefore on account of the fact that the date of application and the date of consideration of the policy would be different, the differential treatment should not be given to the employees. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- “20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date, namely, the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 government servant dies in harness on 1-1- 2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5-2020 and 2-6-2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 1-6-2020. If the date of consideration of 8 the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before 1-6-2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 1-6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.” 17. Faced with this situation, the appellants-State has fallen back on the judgment of a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Abhishek Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 280, to point out that the view in N.C. Santhosh case (supra), was held to be correct. 18. We have gone through the above said judgment in which the judgment in Amit Shrivas case (supra) also of a three-Judge Bench, had been passed, subsequent to the judgment in N.C. Santhosh case (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the said Bench as such. 19. It is in such circumstances, keeping in view the law on precedent, we are of the considered opinion that once there is a conflict as such between the two Benches of equal strength of the Apex Court the 9 judgment which lays down the law more elaborately is to be followed. 20. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Full Bench in Indo Swiss Time Limited Vs. Umrao and Others AIR 1981 (Punjab & Haryana) 213, wherein it was observed as under:- “23. Now the contention that the latest judgment of a co-ordinate Bench is to be mechanically followed and must have pre-eminence irrespective of any other consideration does not commend itself to me. When judgments of the superior Court are of coequal Benches and therefore of matching authority then their weight inevitably must be considered by the rationale and the logic thereof and not by the mere fortuitous circumstances of the time and date on which they were rendered. It is manifest that when two directly conflicting judgments of the superior Court and of equal authority are extant than both of them cannot be binding on the courts below. Inevitably a choice, though a difficult one, has to be made in such a situation. On principle it appears to me that the High Court must follow the judgment which appears to it to lay down the law more elaborately and accurately. The mere incidence of time whether the judgments of co-equal Benches of the superior Court are earlier or later is a consideration which appears to me as hardly relevant.” 21. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, in such circumstances is well justified and therefore we not only uphold the same but also quash the order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the Additional Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh during the pendency of the appeal, whereby the rejection had been done as noticed above. 22. It is also pertinent to notice that the same view has been followed by us in LPA No.214 of 2025 titled State 10 of Himachal Pradesh & others Vs. Sh. Radha Mohan, decided on 06.05.2025. 23. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off.” 9. From a perusal of the aforementioned judgments, it is crystal clear that the case for offering the appointment on compassionate grounds, has to be dealt with under the policy prevalent on the date of death of an employee. Since in the present case, the father of the petitioner had died on 26.12.2010 and the petitioner is fighting for his right to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, his case is to considered under the policy, which was prevalent on the date of death of his father in view of the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, which has been followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeal. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the policy, which was prevalent on 26.12.2010, when his 11 father had died, within a period of three months from today. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 16 th June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge