IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 116 of 2026 Decided on: 17.03.2026 Sanjeev Kumar .…Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 19774 of 2025, titled Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:7507 ) 2. The petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate grounds stood rejected on 27.02.2015. The writ petition was filed after a lapse of a decade, in the year 2025, bearing CWP No. 19774 of 2025, which led to its dismissal on the ground that the learned Single Judge held that the mere filing of a representation dated 24.11.2025 would not revive the petitioner’s case, which had already been rejected. Therefore, the prayer made in the writ petition for considering the candidature of the petitioner for employment was not liable to be entertained. 3. Without even challenging the order of rejection, the petitioner, in the prayer clause, made averments that the said order is wrong and deserves to be set aside. In such circumstances, the argument is raised that the reply should have been called for and the matter should have been decided thereafter by the learned Single Judge. We are not in a position to accept the argument raised by the writ petitioner/appellant, who was seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis that his mother, who was serving as a Class-IV employee in the Block Medical Office at Community Health Centre, Bhoranj, Hamirpur, had expired way back in 2010. At that point of 3 ( 2026:HHC:7507 ) time, apparently, the petitioner’s father was also alive and, therefore, the petitioner was not an orphan. The case has now been sought to be made out only in paragraph-9 of the writ petition that the father had expired subsequently, after about 14 years, on 14.03.2024, and that the petitioner’s sister also expired on 15.06.2024. On this basis, the petitioner now claims appointment as an orphan under the Kith and Kin policy and seeks compassionate appointment. 4. A perusal of order shows that the earlier case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it did not meet the financial/income criteria fixed as per instructions dated 21.12.2012, 18.07.2014 and 1997/2014 respectively. 5. It is a settled principle as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 that the compassionate appointments are an exception to the rules and not a normal source of recruitment and is only meant to provide the immediate succor to the family when its earning member is taken away suddenly. 6. In Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 248, the Apex Court has held that an application filed belatedly after fourteen years 4 ( 2026:HHC:7507 ) would go on to show that financial help is not required and scheme is meant to be a beneficial scheme aimed at helping those in need of assistance on account of untimely demise in the family and held that the High Court was in error in issuing mandamus to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. 7. Apparently, the rejection order was passed way back in 2015 and the said order had not been challenged for a decade for the reasons best known. A fresh cause of action cannot be said to have arisen on account of the father’s death occurring after a period of nine years from the date of rejection. It has time and again also been held that the policy at the time of death would be applicable. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the nature of the relief sought cannot be a vested right, as such, but only an exception. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition on account of delay and laches is justified in the present facts and circumstances. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. 5 ( 2026:HHC:7507 ) 9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C.Negi) Judge 17th March, 2026 (sushma)