Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 04.11.2025 vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 December, 2025
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No.748 of 2019
Reserved on: 04.11.2025
Pronounced on : 10.12.2025
__________________________________________________________
.
Chamel Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh
and others ....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
of 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Ms. Bhavana Datta, Advocate.
rt For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State.
None for respondent No.5.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Chamel Singh, a compassionate appointee, had initially filed CWP No.4214 of 2011 before this Court and on establishment of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal; and now upon abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.748 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:-
"13 (a) To issue the writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof directing the respondents to consider the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 2 regularization of the services of the petitioner in a regular pay scale from the date he joined the respondent department w.e.f. 1.11.1994 like respondent No.5 and further to give seniority and consequential service benefits to the petitioner from the date of his joining i.e. 1.11.1994.
.
13 (b) To issue writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof directing the respondents to release the arrear of pay as regular employees to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.1994 as has already been given to the respondent No.5 i.e. Shri Balbir Singh."
of FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that his father [Mehru] joined as rt a Beldar on daily wage basis in 1984 and as per Mandays he rendered continuous service from 1986 to 1993 and in the year 1994, he worked for 169 days he fell and was declared medically unfit. Due to medical incapacitation of his father, in September 1994, the Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, HPPWD, Nahan, appointed-deployed the present petitioner [Chamel Singh] as daily wage Beldar on compassionate grounds on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1]. Later, the father of petitioner died on 01.08.1999. The present petitioner [Chamel Singh] continued as Beldar on daily wages since October 1994 and he was regularized as Beldar on ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 3 09.01.2007 with immediate effect in pay scale of Rs.2620-100-3220-110-3060-120-4140 [Annexure P-3].
It is averred that upon death of Shri Dontu, his son, .
Balbir Singh-Respondent No.5, was appointed as Beldar on compassionate grounds, on regular basis.
With these averments the petitioner [Chamel Singh] has claimed that he should be appointed on regular of basis from the date he was initially appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis on 21.10.1994, and the rt discrimination be remedied vis-à-vis Respondent No.5-Balbir Singh who was appointed on regular basis, with all consequential benefits.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4-STATE AUTHORITIES:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 23.06.2011, Respondents No.1 to 4 filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 24.05.2012, of Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, HPPWD, Nahan.
3(i). Paras-2 to 5 of Preliminary Submissions of Reply-Affidavit admits that as per Mandays Chart [Annexure R-2] the petitioner's father, namely, Mehru, joined the Respondent-Department in August, 1984 as daily wage Beldar and rendered 240 days in each ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 4 year till 1993 but in 1994 he fell ill and completed only 164 days. In September 1994, while working as a daily wager, he was declared medically unfit.
.
Reply-Affidavit further indicates that petitioner's father [Mehru] could not be regularized for want of 10 years of continuous services with 240 days in each calendar year as required in terms of Policy prevalent at of relevant time.
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the rt State Authorities have issued a Policy for Compassionate Appointment dated 18.01.1990, which provides that in case a Government Servant dies or is declared medically incapacitated, while being a daily wager having rendered at least 5 years of daily wage continuous service, then, in such an eventuality the employment would be given daily wage only. It is further averred that in terms of Compassionate Policy dated 18.01.1990, the present petitioner, namely, Chamel Singh, was appointed as Beldar as daily wages on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1]. Reply-Affidavit states that on the other hand, one Shri Dontu was employed on daily wage basis as Beldar in 1985 and after rendering 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 5 years of continuous daily wage service, aforesaid Shri Dontu was regularized on 15.03.2001 w.e.f.
01.01.1998 in terms of the applicable Policy and one .
Shri Dontu died while being a regular employee therefore Respondent No.5-Balbir Singh, was appointed on regular basis. On the hand, the State Authorities have stated that once the petitioner [Chamel Singh], of was offered appointment on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1] rt and the petitioner has accepted the offer without any protest, therefore, at this belated stage of more than two decades, the petitioner cannot seek change in status from daily wager to regular appointment from the year 1994.
3(iii). Reply-Affidavit states that other dependents, namely, Shri Kanthi Ram, Udya Ram, Bhinder Singh, Raju Ram and Respondent No.4-Balbir Singh, were appointed on regular basis as their respective fathers had rendered 10 years of continuous service and based on such service they were granted regular appointment also whereas in case of petitioner his father, namely, Mehru since he was a daily wager and ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 6 was declared medically unfit while being a daily wager therefore, petitioner was validly employed on compassionate grounds as a Beldar, on daily wages .
only on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1] as per norms.
With these submissions, the State Authorities have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY PETITIONER:
of
4. Petitioner filed a Rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. It is averred rt that once Shri Dontu, father of Respondent No.5 was junior to the father of petitioner, namely, Mehru, who had acquired 10 years of continuous service, therefore, the action of granting employment to the petitioner, Chamel Singh on daily wage basis, while giving regular appointment to Balbir Singh-Respondent No.5 is discriminatory and illegal.
5. Heard, Ms. Bhavana Datta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 7 Court is of the considered view, that claim of the petitioner for regular appointment from the date of his initial appointment on compassionate grounds on .
daily wage basis on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is devoid of any merit, for the following reasons:-
6(i). Admittedly, father of petitioner, namely, of Mehru, was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in 1984 and he served as such till 1994. Perusal of rt Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1] indicates that petitioner's father, Mehru had rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1986 till 1993 but he had rendered 169 days during the year 1994, when, he left the job, on account of his ailment. He was declared medically unfit in September 1994. Perusal of above facts would indicate that petitioner's father, namely, Mehru, had not rendered 10 years of continuous with 240 days from 1986 onwards.
These facts go on to establish that once the petitioner's father, namely, Mehru, left job, due to medical unfitness- incapacitation, while being a daily wage Beldar, in the Respondent-Department, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 8 the petitioner, namely, Chamel Singh was appointed as Beldar on daily wages in terms of Clause 2 (b) and (d) of the Policy for Compassionate Employment dated .
18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2], which reads as under:-
"2. To whom the policy is applicable:-
The employment assistance on compassionate ground will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a Son or unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. servant to father, Mother, Brother of and unmarried sister of :-
a. a Govt. servant who die while in service (including by suicide) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. rt b. a daily wage employee who dies while in service after having rendered at least five years' service with not less than 240 days on daily basis in a year (to be computed as an average of the number of the days served in the preceding years) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. In such cases compassionate employment would be on daily wages only.
c. ....Not relevant d. a Govt. servant (Class-III and IV only) who retires on medical grounds under rule 38 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Provided the employee so retiring has not crossed the age of 53 years and 55 years in case of Class-III and IV respectively."
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 9 REGULAR APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED DEHORS CLAUSE 2 (b) OF POLICY WHICH ENABLES DAILY WAGED EMPLOYMENT:
6(ii). Since the petitioner, Chamel Singh was .
entitled for appointment on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds and the said benefit was extended to petitioner on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], then, the claim of the petitioner for treating him of as regular Beldar is not tenable, for the reason, that his compassionate appointment is to be regulated as per rt Policy in force at the relevant time. Based on the factual matrix and the provision of Clause 2 (b) and (d) of Compassionate Policy dated 18.01.1990, in case, a Government Servant dies or was declared medically incapacitated while being a daily wager, then, the appointment of the petitioner as Beldar on daily wage basis on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], is in accordance with Policy. Claim of the petitioner for employment on regular basis cannot be granted to the petitioner dehors the mandate of Clause 2 (b) and
(d) of Policy for Compassionate Appointment dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2], as referred to above.
CHANGE IN POST-APPOINTMENT-IMPERMISSIBLE:
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE
10
6(iii). Once the petitioner was appointed as
daily wage basis on compassionate grounds in terms of Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2] on .
21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], then, the petitioner after accepting the appointment cannot seek change in appointment from daily wage to regular appointment, in view of Clause 11 of Policy for Compassionate of Appointment dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2], which reads as under:-
rt "11. Request for change in posts:-
When a person has accepted a compassionate appointment to a particular post the set circumstances which led to his/her initial appointment should be deemed to have ceased to exist and thereafter the person who has accepted compassionate appointment in a particular post should strive in his career like his colleagues for future advancement. The request for change in posts should not be allowed. However, the incumbents would be allowed to apply for jobs under Govt./Corporation/Govt. of India. If they have better prospects there like other Govt. servants."
In the above backdrop, once Clause 11 of Policy dated 18.01.1990, specifically debars the change in post after having accepted the compassionate appointment, then, the claim of the petitioner for appointing him on regular basis instead of daily ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 11 wages on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], is not tenable.
6(iv). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends .
that the petitioner deserves to be appointed on regular basis instead of daily wage basis w.e.f.
21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1].
The above contention is misconceived, for of the reason, that once Clause 2 (b) of Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2] provides for giving rt employment to a dependent on daily wage basis, in case, the Government Servant was a daily wager, upon his death or upon his medical incapacitation and the petitioner, Chamel Singh, was offered employment as Beldar on daily wage basis, then, petitioner has neither any legal right nor any locus standi to claim appointment on regular basis dehors the spirit of Clause 2 (b) and Clause 11 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2].
CLAIM FOR COMPASSIONATE EMPLOYMENT DEHORS POLICY DEPRECATED BY LAW:
6(iv-a). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) SCC ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 12 653 and the mandate of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khubwati Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others [LPA No.335 of 2024] .
decided on 24.07.2025 that Compassionate Appointment cannot be granted dehors the Policy framed by the State Authorities. Accepting the prayer of the petitioner for appointing him on regular basis, when, the of petitioner was validly given employment as Beldar on daily wages on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], which was rt duly accepted by the petitioner cannot be permitted, dehors the mandate of Clause 2 (b) and Clause 11 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990. Thus, the claim of the petitioner being devoid of any merit, is disallowed.
PLEA OF DISCRIMINATION UNTENABLE:
6(v). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that once Respondent No.5-Balbir Singh was appointment as a Beldar on regular basis upon death of his father, Dontu, then, the petitioner deserves to be appointed on regular basis instead of daily wage basis on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1] by modifying the aforesaid orders.::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE
13
The above contention is misconceived,
for the reason, that perusal of Reply-Affidavit
indicates that father of Respondent No.5-Balbir Singh, .
namely, Shri Dontu had rendered continuous service with 240 days under the Respondents-State from 1988 till 1997 and based on 10 years of continuous service, the aforesaid Shri Dontu was of regularized as Beldar on 15.03.2001 w.e.f. 01.01.1998 [Annexure R-4]. In these circumstances, once as per Clause rt2 (b) of Policy, the nomenclature of a Government Servant [being a daily wager or regular] was the test for giving employment on daily wage or regular basis and based on this provision, Shri Dontu was a regular employee, as on the date of his death on 02.03.1998 [being regular employee as per Annexure R-4 w.e.f. 01.01.1998], therefore his son i.e. Respondent No.5 was validly appointed as Beldar on regular basis, whereas, the father of petitioner, namely, late Shri Mehru, who was medically incapacitated/declared unfit while being a daily wager then, the State Authorities had validity given employment to the petitioner-Chamel Singh as a ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 14 daily wager Beldar. The distinction and classification carved out in giving appointment to the petitioner, Chamel Singh on daily wage basis vis-à-vis appointment .
given to Respondent No.5-Balbir Singh on regular basis, is borne out from Clause 2 (b) of Compassionate Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2]. Thus the employment given to the petitioner as Beldar on of daily wages does not suffer from any infirmity.
6(v-a). Plea of the petitioner for parity with rt other dependents, namely, Shri Kanthi Ram, Uday Ram, Bhinder Singh and Raju Ram is untenable, when, the respective father of these dependents died after being granted the regular status, which situation never occurred in case of petitioner's father, namely, Mehru.
The plea of discrimination is not tenable, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in Surinder Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others alongwith connected matters, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) (DB) 113, wherein, the issue and claim of a dependent for change in post, alleging discrimination, was negated ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 15 by the Division Bench of this Court, in the following terms:
"76. The discretion to offer appointment on compassionate ground is vested .
with the respondents/Authorities and it is for the said Authorities to see whether a person is to be appointed against a Class-IV or Class-III post or on daily wage basis and that discretion cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination, and that too, when of a person has accepted the offer of appointment and joined without any demur and enjoyed the rt benefits. However, there is also no quarrel about the proposition that the Authority, who is vested with the discretion of making appointment on compassionate ground, is expected to exercise the discretion vested in it judiciously and without being influenced, strictly in accordance with the provisions envisaged in the Policy, so that the avowed object sought to be achieved by the State, by framing such a policy, is achieved.
77. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the incumbents, who have been appointed on a particular post and have joined to the said post without expressing any reluctance or protest, such incumbents are precluded from claiming that they should either be appointed to a higher post or should have been given appointment on regular basis, instead of employment on contract basis, or have been discriminated viz. a viz. similarly paced persons."::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 16 In the backdrop of the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) and the principles laid down therein which had attained finality, this .
Court is of the considered view that once the compassionate appointment lies within the discretion of the State Authorities and a claimant has no vested right for compassionate appointment coupled with the of fact that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but is only to enable the rt dependent family to tide over the sudden situation and to provide succour to the family; then, in such a situation the plea of discrimination or plea for change in post is not tenable, when, the employee alike the petitioner having accepted the appointment as Beldar [Clas-IV] on daily wage basis on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1] cannot turn around and seek change in post alleging discrimination [which in instant case is also not made out], therefore, the plea of petitioner is devoid of any merit.
NON-CHALLENGE TO CLAUSE 2 (b) OF POLICY DISENTITLES PETITIONER FOR RELIEF:
6(vi). Pertinently the petitioner has not assailed
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE
17
Clause 2 (b) of Compassionate Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2]. Not laying a challenge to the Policy when, the petitioner, Chamel Singh, was validly .
employed as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1] in terms of Clause 2 (b) and Clause 2 (d) of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment dated 18.01.1990, disentitles the petitioner of for any relief. Thus, the plea for change in status from daily wager to regular Beldar cannot be granted rt dehors the Policy.
DELAY DESTROYS RIGHT AND REMEDY:
6(vii). Case of the petitioner needs to be examined from another angle. Petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on daily wages, on compassionate grounds on 21.10.1994 and continued to work as such till the filing of the writ petition on 08.04.2011. Once petitioner had accepted the daily waged appointment as Beldar on compassionate grounds on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1] and continued to work as such till his regularization in 2007 as Beldar, which too was acquired till the filing of the writ petition in 2011, then, the prayer seeking modification in nomenclature ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 18 from daily wager to regular appointment, suffers from delay and laches. Belated claim for change in nomenclature or appointment was turned down by the .
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khubwati [supra]. Thus, the claim of the petitioner suffers from inaction, lethargy and negligence and the same is accordingly turned down.
of 6(viii). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed in CWP No.8032 of 2021, rt titled as Vikas Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others alongwith connected matters, decided on 23.06.2025, to assert that the petitioner therein was directed to be treated to have been appointed on regular basis from the date of their initial appointment instead of appointing them on daily wage basis/contract basis, therefore, the petitioner deserves same treatment.
Upon perusal of the judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar [supra], this Court with, is unable to accept the contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the reason, firstly, the judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar [supra] is distinguishable;::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 19 and secondly, Para-3 of judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar [supra], states that "there was no provision in the Policy of 1999 for giving employment .
to the dependent on daily wage basis to Class-III and Class-IV posts; and thirdly, once contractual nomenclature of employment was incorporated in the Compassionate Policy in 2007 only; and, fourthly, of directions in Para-23 by treating the petitioners in the case of Vikas Kumar [supra] to give regular rt compassionate appointees from the date of initial appointment is contrary to the provisions of Clause 2 (d) of the Compassionate Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2], which specifically provides that in case, the deceased employee was daily wager, dependent is to be given employment on daily wage basis only.
In these circumstances, the findings recorded in Para-3 and Para-23 of the judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar [supra] are not applicable in the present case. In factual and legal scenario, this Court is unable to accept the contention/claim of the petitioner, in terms of judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar [supra].::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS
2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 20
7. No other point pressed/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
8. In view of the above discussion and for .
the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition, is dismissed, in the following terms:-
(i) Claim of the petitioner for considering and appointing him on regular basis instead of daily wage basis since his of appointment on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], is rejected;
(ii) rt Claim for change in appointment from daily wages to regular basis from date of initial appointment on 21.10.1994 [Annexure P-1], cannot be permitted dehors the spirit of Clause 2(b) and Clause 2(d) of Compassionate Policy dated 18.01.1990 [Annexure R-2] [supra];
(iii) Distinction based on nomenclature of service rendered by deceased employee [petitioner's father being a daily wager incumbent vis-a-vis Respondent No.5's father being a regular employee at time of medical incapacitation or death], as per Clause 2
(b) of the Policy dated 18.01.1990, having not been questioned is upheld;
and ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS 2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE 21
(iv) Parties to bear respective costs.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 10, 2025 [Bhardwaj] of rt ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 20:38:01 :::CIS