2026:HHC:4654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6270 of 2024 Decided on: 27.02.2026 Puran Chand … Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary Public Works Deptt. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Shivom Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh Deputy AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of communication dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure P-5), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to your letter No. PWE-80-4-Apptt.(NH Circle, Shahpur)/Es-1-7532-34, dated 22-07-2019 on the subject cited above and to say that employment assistance case of Shri Puran Chand s/o Shri Nand Lal has been considered by the Departmental Scruiting Committee constituted at Govt. level and after due consideration, the committee has recommended case for rejection. As per recommendation of the committee, the applicant does not meet the financial/income criteria as prescribed in instructions dated 07-03-2019 and 01-11-2019 issued by the Finance 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:4654 Department. Hence, the case of applicant after consideration is hereby rejected and applicant be intimated accordingly. The documents of the case are returned herewith in original.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was permanent employee of the respondent-department and was serving as a Mason, took premature retirement on account of his physical disability and he was retired as such on his asking on 30.11.2011. According to the petitioner, his case for compassionate appointment was forwarded by the Engineer-in-Chief of the respondent- department to the Principal Secretary Public Works, vide Annexure P-4 dated 22.07.2019. The petition is conspicuously silent as to when the petitioner applied for the job on compassionate grounds and this Court has made this observation for the reason that later part of the judgment would demonstrate that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and material facts have been concealed from the Court at the time of filing of the writ petition. Further as per the pleadings, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents in the year 2020 and he again re-submitted his case by way of Annexure P- 6, dated 06.09.2022, however, as the case of the petitioner was appointment on compassionate basis was not being considered, hence the petition. 3 2026:HHC:4654 3. The reply filed by the respondents demonstrates that after the father of the petitioner took premature retirement, the petitioner applied for job on compassionate grounds in the office of Assistant Engineer NH Sub Division, HPPPWD, Pandoh. The request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the Department vide Annexure R-3, dated 30.03.2013 on the ground that the total annual income of the family of the retired government servant was Rs.1,10,000/- whereas the maximum limit as per the Finance Department instructions was Rs.75,000/- per annum. It is further mentioned in the reply i.e. in para 3(iii) of the preliminary submissions that the petitioner was informed accordingly vide Assistant Engineer NH Sub division HPPWD, Pandoh, letter No. 519-20, dated 27.05.2013. It is further evident from contents of the reply that despite this rejection which was never challenged by the petitioner, he again applied for appointment on compassionate basis which has culminated into subsequent rejection which has been assailed by way of the present writ petition. 4. Before making any further observations, this Court would like to refer to the rejoinder that has been filed by the petitioner to the reply of the respondents and the facts as have been pleaded in the reply with regard to the petitioner having approached for compassionate appointment in the year 2012, the case being rejected in the year 2013 and the factum of rejection having been 4 2026:HHC:4654 conveyed to the petitioner, have not been denied. On the other hand, a complete summersault has been taken in para-3 of preliminary submissions of the reply to the writ petition and the element of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, has been introduced therein. 5. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that herein after the father of the petitioner took premature retirement in the year 2011, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2012. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Authorities in the year 2013. These facts have been concealed by the petitioner in the writ petition and it has not been disclosed that before making the subsequent prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds which resulted in its rejection in terms of Annexure P-5, the petitioner had earlier also applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2012 and the same was rejected in the year 2013. 6. Not only this, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment having been rejected by the authorities in the year 2013, the petitioner otherwise also was having no locus or right to apply for compassionate appointment on the same cause till the earlier rejection was either not withdrawn by the authorities or set 5 2026:HHC:4654 aside by the competent Court of law. 7. Not only this, a perusal of Annexure P-5 demonstrates that herein also the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the applicant was not meeting the income criteria fixed by the government. During the course of hearing of this petition, otherwise also it could not be demonstrated that the findings were incorrect and not as per policy. This Court is of the considered view that herein as the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and in the absence of there being any challenge to the first rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the year 2013, which rejection has attained finality, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted and this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 27, 2026 (narender)