2026:HHC:35414 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA COPC No. 915/2026 Decided on: 20.08.2026 Saurav Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & anr. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed alleging violation of order, dated 08.04.2026, as passed by this Court in CWP No. 7621/2021, operative portion whereof reads as under:- “5. Having perused the reasoning given in the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the Authority by assigning the reasons of delay and laches because herein the petitioner did not approach the Authority for appointment on compassionate basis after four years from the date of death of the deceased- 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 employee. Appropriate application was filed by the petitioner within the prescribed period of four years. Therefore, the very foundation of the order passed by the Authority is not sustainable in law as the Authority has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner approached the Authority belatedly for the grant of appointment on compassionate basis. On this short count, this order (Annexure P-3) is held to be bad in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside, with the direction to the Authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner now in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 797 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sarita Devi, decided on 19.11.2025 within a period of six weeks from today in terms of the policy in vogue when the father of the petitioner died. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. 2 Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has placed on record copy of office order, dated 13.08.2026, whereby claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected on the ground that the annual income of the family of the deceased employee, including all sources, was Rs.1,50,000/-, which is exceeding the maximum income ceiling prescribed to determine the indigency of the family i.e. 1,00,000/- per annum when the father of the petitioner died and there is no provision in the policy to grant relaxation in income criteria. 3 3 Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is granted liberty to challenge the aforesaid office order before the competent Court of law. 4 In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and the same is closed, however with liberty, as aforesaid. Notices are discharged. (Romesh Verma) 20.08.2026 Judge (pankaj)