2026:HHC:28733 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3323 of 2020 Decided on: 13.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Geeta Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has sought direction to the respondents-State to offer her appointment to the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that father of the petitioner late Shri Deen Dayal was serving as Beldar with the respondents-State since 01.01.1997 and his pay scale was Rs.3020+ DA 45% Rs.1359 with other allowances. He died on 25.12.2001. The petitioner is daughter of late Shri Deen Dayal and Smt. Sunita Devi and was born on 01.05.1997. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28733 ) 3. It has been averred that mother of the petitioner got divorced from her father on 05.02.2000. At that time, she was two and half years old. The petitioner after attaining the age of maturity made a request to the respondents-State to offer her appointment on compassionate grounds and also for grant of family pension alongwith other benefits. However, the respondents-State neither appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds nor granted her family pension and other benefits. It has also been averred that the petitioner has passed her matriculation examination in the year 2012 and 10+2 in the year 2014 and thereafter, she has pursued her studies as B.Com. It has further been averred that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and at present is living with her uncle and his income from all sources is Rs.40,000/- per annum. It has further been averred that the petitioner being a sole legal heir of late Shri Deen Dayal is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. Respondents-State filed reply and averred that the compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. However, it has been admitted that the deceased Shri Deen Dayal was working as Beldar with the respondents-State w.e.f. 01.01.1997, but he left behind respondents No. 4 and 5 as his legal heirs, as per the documents supplied by them to the respondents-State. On the 3 2026:HHC:28733 ) basis of the legal heirs certificate supplied by respondents No. 4 and 5, the respondents-State had released the service benefits i.e. gratuity of Rs.52,548/- and GPF of Rs.47,003/- to respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 4 has been granted pension as determined by the Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. A copy of the Parivar Register supplied by respondents No. 4 and 5 does not depict the name of the petitioner as family member of the deceased. Since, deceased Sh. Deen Dayal had left behind respondents No. 4 and 5, as his first class legal heirs, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as sought in the petition. It has further been averred that as per the Government Policy, the widow or the children of the deceased are entitled for job on compassionate ground, but the claim of respondent No.4 being widow of deceased employee, who had applied for the job on compassionate ground was rejected since she could not fulfill the criteria. The petitioner is claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased employee after a period of 17 years from the death of the deceased and in view of the documents supplied by respondents No. 4 and 5, her claim is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. It is true that in the copy of the Parivar Register, the 4 2026:HHC:28733 ) name of the petitioner does not find mention, but the respondents- State cannot ignore the birth certificate issued by the competent authority, wherein, the petitioner has been shown to be the daughter of late Sh. Deen Dayal and she was born out of the wedlock of Sh. Deen Dayal and Smt. Sunita Devi, who was the mother of the petitioner. Unfortunately, the mother of the petitioner got divorced from her father late Sh. Deen Dayal on 05.02.2000 and thereafter the father of the petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No.4. The document placed on record by the respondents-State, Annexure R-2, also reveals that name of the mother of the petitioner has been deleted from the Parivar Register. 7. No doubt, the appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right, however, when a minor after attaining the age of majority applies for appointment on compassionate ground, the said relief cannot be rejected on the ground of approaching the Court late, taking the date of death of the employee. The petitioner has placed on record her birth certificate, (Annexure A-7), wherein her date of birth has been shown as 01.05.1997 and she attained the age of majority on 01.05.2015 and immediately thereafter she had applied for consideration of her claim for appointment on compassionate ground. Once, the document placed on record, i.e. birth certificate clearly reveals that 5 2026:HHC:28733 ) the petitioner is daughter of late Sh. Deen Dayal and further the copy of Parivar Register also shows that the name of mother of the petitioner was deleted only after she divorced from her father, the respondents-State cannot reject the claim of the petitioner for considering her case for appointment on compassionate ground, on the grounds that she is not the legal heir of late Sh. Deen Dayal; or that she has approached the Court after a period of 17 years. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-State is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the Policy prevalent on 25.12.2001, when late Sh. Deen Dayal, father of the petitioner had died. Since, the petitioner is agitating the matter before the Court since 2017, the respondents-State is directed to consider her claim within a period of three months from today and take appropriate decision thereupon. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of. 13th July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (mamta) Judge