2026:HHC:30597 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.6 737of 2019 Decided on : 22 nd July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Radha ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 23.6.2015 contained in Annexure A-7 as well as order dated 16.11.2015 contained in Annexure A-8 issued by Respondent No.2 may kindly be set-aside and quashed. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant as Class-IV employee on compassionate ground as soon as possible;” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the husband of the petitioner, namely Sh. Chintamani, was engaged as Sweeper on daily wage basis with respondent No.2-Board in the month of January 1991 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2001, as evident from a perusal of office order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, as per the office order dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure A-2), his pay was re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.2520-4140 with initial start of Rs.2620/-. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner died on 17.12.2014 and left behind petitioner, his sons and mother. 3. The petitioner immediately after death of her husband applied for compassionate appointment on 17.01.2015 when the income of her family from all sources was Rs.19,500/- per annum. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste category (Annexure A-6). However, her claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected vide communication dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure A-7) on the ground that as per the vacancy position, no post can be filled 3 in respondent No.2-Board and thus her claim cannot be considered at this stage. The petitioner was also conveyed about the same, vide letter dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure A-8), to the effect that her claim could not be considered since there are no posts lying vacant. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of prayer to offer her appointment on compassionate ground has approached this Court for quashing the decision stating that her family is living in indigent conditions and it has become difficult for her to maintain herself and her family. It has also been averred that once the post held by her husband is still lying vacant, she could have been offered the appointment. Further her case has to be dealt with as per the kith and kin policy dated 18.01.1990. 5. Respondent No.2-Board filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that as per the instructions of respondent No.1, communicated vide letter(s) dated 10.11.2008 and 10.09.2013, 5% of the vacancies falling 4 under direct recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV employees, were to be specifically to be filled up on compassionate grounds and as per the latest instructions received from the Finance Department of the State Government, vide letter dated 27.01.2016, the compassionate appointment in case of natural death shall be permissible to the eligible dependents of only those deceased Government employees, who died in harness on or before attaining the age of 50 years. At present, 10 applications/requests for grant of compassionate appointment are already pending in the office of respondent No.2-Board since the year 1999 and there was no direct recruitment to the posts of Class-III and Class-IV. Due to the aforesaid reasons, no appointment can be granted to any person on compassionate grounds. Further, as per the office memorandum dated 27.01.2016, husband of the petitioner died on 17.12.2014 (wrongly mentioned as 18.12.2014) at the age of 51 years and 7 months and since he had completed 50 years of age, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. 5 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. It was specifically pleaded that the policy framed on 27.01.2016 is not applicable, since her husband died on 17.12.2014. 7. When the matter was listed before the Court on 11.05.2026, the Court had directed respondent No.2-Board to file supplementary affidavit regrading vacancy position, as of today, since the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 23.06.2015 on the ground of no vacancy at that time. 8. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court, respondent No.2-Board filed the supplementary affidavit, disclosing therein that the sanctioned posts of Class-IV are 44, out of which only 28 posts have been filled up and 16 posts are lying vacant. However, as per the Revised Compassionate Employment Policy of the State Government framed/circulated vide office M.O. Fin-F-(A)-(16)-1/2013 dated 07.03.2019 and fresh instructions issued on 17.02.2025 and OM dated 08.10.2025 of the Finance Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, the compassionate 6 appointment may be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies under direct recruitment quota in Class-IV posts. As per the vacancy position, as on date, 5% comes out to 0.80 and is less than 1. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is by now settled in a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the actual date of determination of the claim for consideration to offer appointment on compassionate grounds is the date of death which does not change and the policies go on changing. Reference in this regard is made to a three-Judge Bench decision in N.C. Santhosh versus State of Karnataka and others, (2020) 7 SCC 617. 11. It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner died on 17.12.2014 (Annexure A-3) and the policy, which has been quoted by respondent No.2-Board while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, was issued after his death. The office memorandum dated 10.11.2008 does not mention the date of 7 death of the deceased, whose dependents have to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The office memorandum dated 27.01.2016 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner, since the claim for offering her appointment is to be considered with reference to the date of death of her husband i.e. 17.12.2014. 12. No doubt, when the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected, there was no post lying vacant, but as per the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No.2-Board, as of now, out of 5% vacancies, less than 1 vacancy falls under the category of compassionate appointment and if the submission made by respondent No.2-Board is accepted, the petitioner will never get appointment on compassionate grounds. The other persons who were earlier not granted appointments on compassionate grounds have been appointed. 13. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and further as per the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No.2-Board, 16 8 vacant posts of Class-IV are still lying vacant. The petitioner immediately after rejection of her claim, had approached the Court in the year 2016 and in case her claim is defeated only on the ground that 5% quota available to Class-IV employees carry less than 1 vacancy, she will never get appointment and that is not the purpose of engrafting the policy for compassionate appointment. The purpose of engrafting the policy for compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the grievances of the dependents, who are left behind by the person, who was the only earning hand in the family. In the present case, the income of the family of the petitioner was Rs.19,500/- per annum and further she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and thus, she deserves to be offered appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned communications dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure A-7) and 16.11.2015 (Annexure A-8) are quashed and set aside, with a direction to respondent No.2-Board, to offer her appointment on compassionate ground as a Class-IV 9 employee within a period of three months from today. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. However, no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 22 nd July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge