2026:HHC:19338-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.3050 of 2020 Decided on: 21 st May, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Amrik Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the order dated 08.01.2020 contained in Annexure P-7 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondent department may also kindly be directed to consider and give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis w.e.f. the date when he put in the requisite papers staking his claim to the post with all consequential benefits.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that his father, who was working as Head Teacher in the respondent-department, had taken premature voluntary retirement on 31.08.1990, due to permanent disability suffered during service. Despite making representations, the same were not considered properly and ultimately came to be rejected vide ofÏce order dated 24.04.1997, on the ground that his elder brother was in Govt. service. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, approached the erstwhile Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1966 of 1997, which after being transferred to this Court, was registered as CWP(T) No.4633 of 2008, titled, Amrik Singh vs. State of H.P. and another. The said petition came to be disposed of on 28.07.2009, noticing that the order under challenge, passed by the respondent-department, is terse and shows non-application of mind and as such the same was 3 quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner. It is also observed that the father of the petitioner had retired in the year 1990 and now a period of more than 18 years has elapsed. It is further observed that the petitioner had attained the age exceeding 30 years’, and in such circumstances, it would be open to the State to consider whether at this belated stage, it will be possible to provide any employment to the petitioner and whether the dependency has ceased or still exists. 4. After the said direction given by this Court, respondent No.2 had passed an order on 15.02.2016, stating that the petitioner had raked up the issue after expiry of 6 years, whereas this Directorate of Education had already taken the decision on 22.08.2009 and the petitioner had not submitted the requisite documents within time and thus, his case could not be considered for employment on compassionate grounds. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order 4 dated 15.02.2016 had again approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1374 of 2016, titled, Amrik Singh vs. State of H.P. and another, which came to be disposed of on 02.01.2018, wherein the Tribunal had quashed the order dated 15.02.2016, passed by respondent No.2 and the respondents were directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of the observations made by this Court in CWP(T) No.4633 of 2008 (supra) within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The Tribunal had also observed that the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the observation made by this Court instead of directing him to furnish fresh documents, which were already with the respondents. 6. After the directions given by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 again passed an order on 04.07.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected, noticing that the father of the petitioner was working as Head Teacher 5 with the Department and had taken voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.08.1990. As per the advice given by the Finance/Law Department, conveyed through respondent No.1, it is not feasible to concede the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and his claim came to be rejected vide order dated 04.07.2018. 7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2 approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No.4842 of 2018, titled, Amrik Singh vs. State of H.P. and another and the same was disposed of on 24.04.2019 holding that the order passed by respondent No.2 is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court and a direction was also issued to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. After passing of order dated 24.04.2019 by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 again passed an order on 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-6), stating that the speaking order by 6 the Directorate had already been passed on 04.07.2018. Thereafter, another order was passed on 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-7), by respondent No.2, stating that the father of the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement from service on medical grounds on 31.08.1990. The petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 1994. As per the provisions contained in para 5(c) of the Policy for appointment on compassionate grounds notified by the Government on 18.01.1990 and thereafter revised from time to time, in all cases, where one or more members of the family are already in Government service or in employment of Autonomous bodies/ Boards/Corporations etc. or the State/Central Government, employment assistance, should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. It has been noticed in the order that the brother of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Dilawar Singh, was working in Punjab State Electricity Board as a Class-IV employee at the relevant time of consideration of the 7 application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and the petitioner has failed to produce any relevant record till date having a bearing upon the fact that none of the family members were in Government service at the relevant time of consideration of his application. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to employment on compassionate grounds as per the policy provisions mentioned hereinabove. 9. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 has approached this Court averring that on two different occasions, while allowing the original applications of the petitioner, the respondent-department was directed to re- consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the specific observations made by this Court in judgment dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) and the impugned orders are totally contrary to the basic principles of rendering justice. The plea taken by the respondent-department that the case of the petitioner could not be considered because at the 8 relevant time his brother was already in the employment of Punjab State Electricity Board, is baseless. The petitioner had already placed on record the evidence that his brother is living separately and thus the respondent-department cannot abdicate its responsibility to accord compassionate appointment to one member of the family. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner in a biased manner and as such the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 10. The respondents filed reply to the petition and supported its decision. It has been averred that since the brother of the petitioner is already employed in Punjab State Electricity Board and further sufÏcient time has elapsed since the voluntary retirement of his father in 1990, therefore, no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to gain employment after a lapse of 30 years. 11. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts. 9 12. I have heard Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, and also perused the record carefully. 13. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent- department has not adhered to the directions given by this Court and rejected the claim on totally untenable grounds. Once the brother of the petitioner is living separately, the reason assigned by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the claim, is not sustainable in law. 14. No doubt, while disposing of the writ petition by this Court on 28.07.2009, it was held that the order under challenge is terse and shows non-application of mind. However, this Court, while disposing of the petition had also taken note of the fact that the father of the petitioner had retired in the year 1990 and a period of more than 18 years 10 had elapsed. Further the petitioner had attained the age exceeding 30 years and thus, it will be open to the State to consider whether at this late stage, it will be possible to provide any employment to the petitioner and whether the dependency has ceased or still exists. 15. After the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner slept over the matter. If the respondents were not considering the claim of the petitioner as directed by this Court, it was expected of him to approach the Court seeking direction to decide his claim within reasonable time. But, he slept over the matter, which shows that he was not much interested and needy person to get the appointment on compassionate ground. 16. No doubt, the Tribunal while disposing of the O.A. No.1374 of 2016, on 02.01.2018 had observed that the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made by this Court and never directed him to furnish fresh documents, which were 11 already with the respondents. But once the petitioner has slept over his rights and did not approach the Court within time, the relief claimed by him at this belated stage is not tenable. The purpose of providing employment on compassionate grounds is to ameliorate the grievance of the family, who were dependent upon the person, who was in government service. 17. In the present case, the petitioner was seeking the compassionate appointment on account of the fact that his father had taken the voluntary retirement on medical grounds and not being dependent of the deceased, who died in harness. It is settled law that the compassionate appointment is not a legal/fundamental right of a person and once the family was surviving after the voluntary retirement of the father of the petitioner since 1990, it would not be appropriate at this stage to give directions to the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner, especially, when he has now crossed 50 years of age. 12 18. The respondent-department while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds also observed that his brother is employed in Punjab State Electricity Board as a Class IV employee. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. The plea taken by the petitioner that he is living separately from his brother does not advance his case. The purpose of providing employment on compassionate grounds is to see the condition of the family and provide immediate succor to the family. 19. As already noticed above, in the present case, the petitioner is seeking employment on compassionate grounds on account of pre-mature retirement of his father, who retired on 31.08.1990. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that since much time has elapsed from the date of retirement of father of the petitioner and the family is surviving, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 20. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No 13 order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21 st May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge