2026:HHC:30867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15061 of 2025 Reserved on 08.07.2026 Decided on: 27.07.2026 Uploaded on: 27.07.2026 Naveen Kumar … Petitioner Versus Bhakara Beas Management Board and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr.P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To issue appropriate writ or order to quash and set aside the office order dated 24.6.2025, Annexure P-16, the same being wrong, illegal and arbitrary, and further directions may please also be issued thereby directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction thereby directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and to allow him/grant him all consequential benefits thereof. (iii) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant record pertaining to the present case. (iv) To pass any writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:30867 Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in view of the compassionate appointment given to Shri Vikas Sharma son of late Shri Roshan Lal, vide office memo Annexure P- 17A by the respondents, by relaxing the rules, and to treat the case of the applicant alike, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary, for the adjudication of this petition are the father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Amar Singh was engaged as a Beldar on regular basis with respondent No.1 at Sundernagar. He died in harness on 21.12.2001. According to the petitioner, at the time of death of his father, he was under the direct control of respondent No. 2 and was serving at Sundernagar. Late Shri Amar Singh left behind three legal heirs, i.e. one son and two daughters. According to the petitioner, his mother had already predeceased his father. The petitioner was the youngest among other legal heirs. All the three siblings were minor at the time of the death of their father. The petitioner was only 13 years old and was matriculate. His date of birth is 19.03.1989. As per the petitioner, he applied for employment on compassionate basis vide Annexure P-4, i.e. application dated 29.08.2016, as earlier he was not aware that he was having any right to seek employment on compassionate ground, nor there was any holding-out from the Department informing him or his sisters about any such right. It is further the case of the petitioner that in terms of Annexure P-5, his case was 3 2026:HHC:30867 duly recommended and he had also appended a No Objection Certificate of the other legal heirs, i.e. his sisters. However, in terms of Annexures P-6 and P-7, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Authorities on the ground that he was not covered by the instructions in vogue on the issue. It is further the case of the petitioner that in these circumstances, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.73 of 2022, titled Naveen Kumar Versus Bhakara Beas Management Board and others and the same was decided on 08.07.2024 in terms of Annexure P-12, in the following terms: “11. Be that as it may, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in terms where of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered as per the policy which was in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner died, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 are hereby quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the policy in vogue as on the date of the death of his father and offer him appointment, if found eligible. No order as to cost. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” 3. Said judgment was assailed by Bhakara Beas Management Board by way of a Letters Patent Appeal. In terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 23.05.2025, in LPA No. 368 of 2024, titled Bhakra Beas Management Board and others Versus Naveen Kumar (Annexure P-14), the Letters Patent 4 2026:HHC:30867 Appeal was dismissed as premature on the ground that the case had not yet been decided on merit in terms of the directions passed by the Single Judge. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-16, the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Authorities and feeling aggrieved, he has approached this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of Annexure P-16 demonstrates that the case of the petitioner stands rejected on the ground that in terms of the Policy of 1996, the condition for applying compassionate appointment was within six months as from the date of death, which could have been liberalized to the extent that a request for compassionate appointment by eligible dependent member could be made within a period of two years instead of six years from the date of death. He submitted that it was also observed in this Office Order that in case no dependent member of the family of deceased was eligible for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period of two years from the date of death on account of being underage, the request for compassionate appointment in such case could be made within the prescribed period under the relevant Policy, provided the family had no means of subsistence. He submitted that the case of the petitioner has primarily been rejected on the ground that he had not applied for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Policy dated 18.08.1996 within a reasonable time and he had 5 2026:HHC:30867 slept over the matter for 22 years as from the date of the death of his father. Learned counsel submitted that these findings are per se perverse. He submitted that the petitioner was hardly 13 years old when he lost his father. He applied for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of Annexure P-4 in the year 2016. He submitted that in light of this fact, the findings returned in the impugned order that the petitioner slept over the matter for 22 years are erroneous findings. He also submitted that whereas on one hand, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he had approached the Authorities after considerable delay, the respondents have granted compassionate appointment to one Vikas Sharma, son of Shri Roshan Lal, who was similarly situated as the petitioner and who had approached the respondents after 27 years as from the date of the death of his father. He submitted that the petitioner had also requested the Authorities to consider his case in light of case of Shri Vikas Sharma and as he was being discriminated vis-a-vis similarly situated person, therefore, the rejection of his case was liable to be set aside and direction was liable to be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Authorities. He submitted that it was evident 6 2026:HHC:30867 that the petitioner had slept for 22 years after the death of his father and he had not approached the Authorities within reasonable time to seek employment on compassionate basis. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the maximum time within which a person could have applied for appointment on compassionate basis as per the Policy in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner died, was two years. He submitted that even as from the date when the petitioner had attained the age of majority, he did not apply within two years. He thus submitted that in these circumstances, as there was a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief as was being prayed for. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 7. It is a matter of record that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2001, when he was a minor and so were his sisters. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the respondents. However, it is incorrect on the part of the respondents to state that there was a delay of 22 years on the part of the petitioner to have had approached the Authorities for claiming appointment on compassionate basis. Delay indeed is there, as the petitioner admittedly approached the Authorities for compassionate appointment in the year 2016. But then, fact of the matter is that 7 2026:HHC:30867 initially the petitioner was a minor when his father died and subsequently, as per him, there was no holding-out made to the family by the Department that successors-in-interest of the deceased employee were entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. As the father of the petitioner had died as a Beldar and the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time he was a minor and just a matriculate, benefit of doubt has to be given to him as to whether he was aware of the fact that on attaining the age of majority, he was entitled to apply for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father. In such a circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that initial onus is upon the employer to inform the family of the deceased that they have a right to seek appointment on compassionate basis and in the absence of any such holding-out being made to the petitioner or his other family members by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the Department. In case of employee dying in harness, onus has to be on the Department to inform the family of the deceased of their right to seek appointment on compassionate basis and if despite this the successors-in-interest do not approach for appointment on compassionate basis, then the issue of the party approaching the Authorities belatedly on this count can be gone into. 8. Besides this, in Para-14 of reply of the writ petition 8 2026:HHC:30867 there is a specific averment made by the petitioner that one Shri Vikas Sharma, who had applied for appointment on compassionate basis after 22 years as from the date of death of his father was offered appointment on compassionate basis. A perusal of Para-14 of the reply to the writ petition demonstrates that there is no denial to the averments made in the petition qua Vikas Sharma having been offered appointment on compassionate basis belatedly. In fact, the reply given to this Para is evasive to the averments made by the petitioner that Shri Vikas Sharma had approached the Authorities after a huge delay of 22 years from the date of death of his father (Shri Roshan Lal) and delay as from the date he attained majority, i.e. Shri Vikas Sharma, was of 12 years. 9. Coming to the facts of this case, as the petitioner was 13 years old when his father died in the year 2001, he obviously attained the age of majority somewhere in the year 2006. Thereafter, he applied for job in the year 2016, i.e. 15 years after the death of his father and after about 10 years from the date of attaining the age of majority. If the Department was compassionate in the case of Shri Vikas Sharma while accommodating him, the same compassion should have been shown by the Department to the petitioner also. 10. Accordingly, in light of above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. Office order dated 24.6.2025 (Annexure P-16) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to offer 9 2026:HHC:30867 appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis, taking into consideration his qualifications as also the post held by his father when he died. The appointment be offered to the petitioner as from the date of filing of the earlier writ petition by him. 11. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 27, 2026 (Rishi)