Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a compassionate appointment, once duly approved by the competent authority, cannot be withheld solely on account of the pendency of an FIR for minor offences. Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that until guilt is established in a criminal trial, an individual is deemed innocent, and denial of employment merely on the basis of registration of an FIR is unsustainable.
The case arose from the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a Junior Basic Teacher in the Department of Elementary Education, who passed away in harness in October 2009. The petitioner applied for appointment in 2010. After multiple rounds of consideration and review, the government approved his candidature in 2021 for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT). However, despite approval, no appointment letter was issued.
On inquiry, it was revealed that the appointment was withheld due to an FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 323 and Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State argued that concealment of this fact disentitled him to appointment.
The Court noted that the allegations arose from a personal altercation and were not grave. It emphasised, "Till the time charge is not framed against the accused and he is not convicted by a competent Court of law, he is deemed to be innocent. If it is so, denial of appointment on the ground of mere pendency of FIR, that too for petty offences, may not be sustainable.”
while referring to the precedents, including Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Rajinder Kumar v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which stressed that pendency of a criminal case cannot by itself justify denial of appointment or regularisation, particularly when the allegations are trivial and do not amount to moral turpitude.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner without further delay, while stating “Respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the basis of approval given by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks as per seniority.”
Case Title: Yog Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: CWP No.6233 of 2022
Coram: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Angrez Kapoor
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. General Anup Rattan, Additional Adv. Generals Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, B.C. Verma, Deputy Adv. General Ravi Chauhan
Picture Source :
