( 2026:HHC:36119 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6844 of 2025 Decided on : 25 th August, 2026 Gagan Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Singh Jagota, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for following reliefs: “i) That the impugned rejection order dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-16), qua petitioner, may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider the employment assistance case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the policy in vogue in the year 2010 or 2012.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-16, in terms whereof, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis stands rejected by the Authority. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:36119 ) 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record as also the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. The father of the petitioner passed away in the year 2010. At that time, the petitioner was a minor. When he gained the age of majority, in the year 2012, he applied for appointment on compassionate basis. The case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been now rejected by the authority in terms of the impugned order by relying upon the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 07.03.2019. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh & others vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022)2 SCC 157 has been pleased to hold that the case of an incumbent for grant of compassionate appointment has to be considered in terms of the policy which was in vogue at the time when the death of the employee took place. Relevant paragraphs No.5 and 6 thereof read as under:- “5. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. 3 ( 2026:HHC:36119 ) 6. In Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Herein, as the father of the petitioner passed away in the year 2010, the authorities could not have taken into consideration the 2019 policy to decide the representation of the petitioner and they should have decided the case of the petitioner in light of the policy in vogue at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner. 7. On this short ground, this petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-16 dated 28th June, 2021, is quashed and set aside, with direction to the Authorities to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner in terms of the policy which was prevailing at the time when the father of the petitioner passed away. 4 ( 2026:HHC:36119 ) Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within four weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 25th August, 2026. (jai)