2026:HHC:22653 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9177 of 2026 Decided on : 17.06.2026 Happy …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others ..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr.Chander Shekher Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General ___________________________________________________________ Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge ( Oral) Notice. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs:- “(i). Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned letter/order dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure P-9), whereby the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected for the first time, as the same is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and based on an erroneous computation of family income, which impermissibly included the salary of the deceased Government employee. (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorary to quash and set aside the impugned rejection letter No.EDUA- B015/3/2025-EDU-A/255348 dated 22.09.2025(Annexure P-12) and the consequential communication dated 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2026:HHC:22653 29.10.2025 and 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-13 Colly), as the same are illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unreasoned and contrary to the law and policy applicable to compassionate appointment. (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment to the post of Clerk or any other equivalent post for which the petitioner is eligible, strictly in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy of the State of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-10) and in the light of the correct income Certificate dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure P-11), and to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within a time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. (iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk or any other suitable post, with all consequential benefits as admissible under the applicable rules and policy.” 3. A perusal of the prayer clause as well as the averments made in the writ petition demonstrates that the petitioner's case for grant of appointment on compassionate basis was rejected by the Authority on 24.07.2017 vide Annexure P-1. This order was not assailed by the petitioner either before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which was functional at the relevant time or before this Court within the period of limitation, asfar as the learned Tribunal is concerned, and within a some reasonable time, asfar as this Court is concerned, from the date of passing of the order. 3. 2026:HHC:22653 4. Rather, the petitioner remained silent over the order and subsequently again approached the Authority itself for reconsideration of his case and now, in terms of Annexure P-12, the petitioner stands intimated as under:- “Examined F.D reiterates its earlier advice as tendered/given vide F.D. U.O No.53716161-Fin-F/2017 dated 19.07.2017 (F/X) with the stipulation that the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.988 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7079 of 2016 State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Shashi Kumr has observed that such cases once settled at any relevant time of consideration, are not required to be re-considered fresh. Even F.D.’s instruction dated 22.08.2022 are circulated clear in this regard.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is hit by delay and laches. In the light of the fact that the petitioner's case for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2017, the petitioner should have approached the appropriate Forum within some reasonable time. Failure on the part of the petitioner to do so is fatal, and a subsequent representation cannot cure the said defect. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of on the ground of delay and laches. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 17, 2026 (meera)