Balbeer Singh vs State Of H.P & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5840 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3854 of 2021 Date of Decision: 15 th May, 2023.

.

      Balbeer Singh                                              .....Petitioner.





                                         Versus

      State of H.P & ors.                                        .....Respondents.





      Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Addl. AG.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint

him on compassionate basis. According to the petitioner, number of

persons, who were juniors to the petitioners in applying for compassionate

employment, have been appointed as such, but neither the petitioner nor

any of his family members have been offered compassionate appointment.

2. The respondents in their reply have pleaded that petitioner's

father late Sh. Prahlad served as Beldar with the respondents w.e.f.

01.01.2002 to 25.12.2008. Sh. Prahlad died on 26.12.2008. After the

death of Sh. Prahlad, none of his legal heirs applied for the job on the

compassionate ground. According to the respondents, petitioner's date of

birth is 07.04.1993. He was minor at the time of death of his father and

attained the age of majority on 08.04.2011. Petitioner applied for

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

compassionate appointment on 19.02.2016, when he was around 23 years

of age. Further stand of the respondents is that the petitioner's elder

brother Sh. Gagan Singh was born on 15.03.1987. The elder brother of

.

the petitioner was 21 years old at the time of death of Sh. Prahlad. The

petitioner's elder brother did not apply for the employment on

compassionate grounds and died on 20.04.2012. According to the

respondents, the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate

ground was rejected on 11.08.2016. The rejection was on the ground

that as per policy of the Government, application for employment on

compassionate ground should have been submitted within three years

from the date of death. The respondents have placed on record the

rejection letter dated 11.08.2016 at Annexure R-1. This document is

however silent about the policy considered by the respondents for

rejecting the petitioner's case. In their reply, respondents have fallen

back upon the office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure R-III) for

rejecting the case of the petitioner in view of time limit prescribed therein

for submission of the application for compassionate employment. The

reply also states that elder son of late Sh. Parhlad had died without

applying for employment on compassionate grounds and the petitioner

was aged 23 years, when he applied for compassionate employment. As

per the reply, since the elder son, who was major at the time of the death

of his father did not apply for compassionate employment and since the

younger son (petitioner) applied beyond the prescribed time limit,

petitioner's case was rejected.

3. There is confusion in the reply when read with appended

.

Annexures vis-à-vis stand taken by the respondents for rejecting

petitioner's case. The case of the petitioner could not have been rejected

under the office memorandum dated 07.03.2019, which has been relied

upon in the reply and placed on record as Annexure R-III as this Annexure

(2019 policy) was not applicable to the case of petitioner. In terms of

Annexure R-1, case of the petitioner was rejected on 11.08.2016. The

rejection order (Annexure R-1) is silent as to the applicable policy and

relevant clauses thereof. Even the reply filed by the respondents does not

make any reference to the policy under which the petitioner's case was

actually considered and rejected.

4. Under the above circumstances, notwithstanding Annexure R-

1 dated 11.08.2016, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground in accordance with the applicable policy at the

relevant time and take a fresh decision thereupon in accordance with law

within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, shall

also be communicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand

disposed of.

.

                                         Jyotsna Rewal Dua
                                               Judge

       15th May, 2023





       (CS)




                         r           to