Decided On: 07.08.2025 vs Prem Sagar
2025 Latest Caselaw 3690 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 07.08.2025 vs Prem Sagar on 7 August, 2025

2025:HHC:27091 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.175 of 2025 Decided on: 07.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ H.P. State Forest Development

.

     Corporation Limited                                                 ....Appellants





                                             Versus
     Prem Sagar                                                       ....Respondent





     Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?.

For the appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Gaurav r Kumar and Ms. Aastha Kohli, Advocates.

For the respondent: Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Upadhyay, Advocate.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent

Appeal is to the order passed by learned

Single Judge in CWPOA No.3541 of 2019, titled as

Prem Sagar Versus H.P. State Forest Development

Corporation Ltd. whereby the petition filed by the

writ petitioner/respondent herein was allowed on

04.10.2024. The learned Single Judge, while

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

-2- 2025:HHC:27091

modifying the order dated 20.09.2016 [Annexure P-7],

vide which the writ petitioner had been offered

appointment to the post of Peon, directed that offer be

.

given for the post of Clerk w.e.f. the said date, with all

consequential benefits, i.e. seniority, increments etc.

but restricted monetary benefits to be paid to three

years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition.

2.

The reasoning that weighed with the

learned Single Judge for granting appointment to the

post of Clerk, on compassionate grounds, was that on

the same day, Deepak, son of Late Ashwani Kumar

was also appointed as Clerk on compassionate

grounds and was thereafter posted vide order dated

03.10.2016 in the office of Director of North Zone,

Forest Development Corporation at Dharamshala.

The Court noted that 21 persons had been appointed,

as per the information obtained under Right to

Information as depicted in Annexure P-8 and denial

of a similar benefit to the writ petitioner was found to

be unjustified. It is to be noticed that the petitioner

had himself applied for compassionate appointment

-3- 2025:HHC:27091

on 09.05.2007, after his father had died on

22.01.2016.

3. A reference was made to Annexure P-6 to

.

indicate that one Anup Kumar, son of Gyan Chand,

Deputy Ranger, had applied on 06.05.2015 and had

been recommended for the benefit of appointment to

the post of Clerk. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact

that the petitioner's application was pending from

much earlier date, it was held that denial of

appointment to the post of Clerk on compassionate

grounds was not justified and since the writ

petitioner's father had died on 22.01.2006 and he had

been litigating constantly. The defence of non-

availability of post of Clerk was rejected and

necessary directions were accordingly issued.

4. Apparently, learned Single Judge found the

action of the appellant-Corporation arbitrary to the

extent that persons who had applied at a later point

of time had been granted the benefit of higher post

of Clerk, whereas, the writ petitioner, who had

applied earlier, was relegated to the post of Peon

-4- 2025:HHC:27091

(a Class-IV post).

5. On 8th July, 2025 taking cue from the

order/judgment under consideration, we had

.

recorded the following observations:

"A perusal of Annexure P-9 dated 03.10.2016 would go on to show that one Deepak S/o late

Sh. Ashwani Kumar was given appointment as Clerk on contract basis on compassionate grounds.

2. Counsel for the appellant shall file an affidavit as to when the application was given by the said person, since admittedly the learned r Single Judge in paragraph 12 has referred to

three persons, who were appointed as Clerks and date(s) of applications of other two are 12.04.2002 (Jagdish kumar) and 16.02.2004

(Nirjala Devi), whereas the date of application of the Writ petitioner is 09.05.2007.

3. The necessary affidavit be filed regarding this

aspect by 16.07.2025."

6. Today i.e., 07.08.2025, the necessary

affidavit has been filed, which rather exposes the case

of the appellant-Corporation. We are only referring to

one example, which we wish to highlight. One

Ashwani Kumar, was working as a Timber Watcher in

Himkashth Sale Depot, Nurpur, died on 27.03.2003,

though earlier than the writ petitioner's father.

-5- 2025:HHC:27091

Apparently, one of his dependents, namely, Suraj

Dhiman, submitted an application for compassionate

appointment on 05.08.2003 [Annexure A-2].

.

Thereafter after 10 years on 08.12.2013, he

submitted an affidavit that the appointment be

given to his younger brother, Deepak Dhiman and

he does not want job on compassionate grounds.

The same reads as under:-

"AFFIDAVIT I Suraj Dhiman aged 29 years S/o late r Sh. Ashwani Kumar R/o VPO Jawali, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra H.P, do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under:-

1. That I, am bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh.

2. That my father was doing job in the H.P. State Forest Corporation and was posted at Nurpur, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

3. That my father namely Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Nihal Chand R/o VPO

Jawali, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra H.P. has been expired on 27-03-2003 while in service.

4. That I am one of the legal heirs of my deceased father namely Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar.

5. That I do not want to have service on compassionate grounds.

6. That I have no objection if the job be given to my younger brother namely Sh. Deepak Dhiman on compassionate grounds.

-6- 2025:HHC:27091

7. That at present I am not employee of any State Govt./Central Govt./ Autonomous Body/Board/Corporation etc."

7. In pursuance of the same, the application

.

was duly processed and an order was passed on

14.01.2024, wherein, documents submitted by

Deepak Dhiman, were accepted.

8. It is not disputed that Deepak Dhiman, as

noticed earlier, was appointed vide order of even date,

i.e. 20.09.2016, the same date when the writ

petitioner was appointed and thus effectively usurped

the seat of the petitioner, who had applied much

earlier, which was apparently done for his

convenience by the officials of the appellant-

Corporation, by substituting him against his brother's

application.

9. We fail to understand that how the said

person could have been granted the benefit of

compassionate appointment in lieu of his brother,

who had applied and how his brother could have

stood in the queue since apparently from the records,

it shows that the person appointed was only 13 years

-7- 2025:HHC:27091

old at the time of death of his father, having been

born on 30.01.1990 was not a major. Thus, the

manner in which the appellant-Corporation has

.

appointed the person on compassionate ground,

subject to their convenience, needs to be looked into.

10. It is in such circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that the writ petitioner, having

waited patiently for his turn and having applied on

09.05.2007, could not have been denied the right

on 20.09.2016 by offering the post of Clerk to a

person who had not even applied and was a minor

at time of his father's death.

11. Apparently, Suraj Dhiman, elder son of

Ashwani Kumar, had only blocked the seat and was

not a needy person to be appointed, as he submitted

an affidavit requesting that his younger brother be

appointed in his place and that he was not interested

in the job on compassionate grounds. The whole

purpose of compassionate appointment gets diluted

when instead of addressing the actual financial

distress, it is used to accommodate someone else at

-8- 2025:HHC:27091

convenience, such as the elder sibling stepping aside

to allow the younger sibling to replace him. This

practice militates against the very object of the

.

scheme, which is to provide immediate financial relief

to the bereaved family in need. Apparently, the family

was well-placed to the extent that Suraj Dhiman

himself could opt out of the need for Government

employment and instead propose his brother,

thereby, defeating the core purpose of the

compassionate appointment policy.

12. In such circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that the reasons which weighed

with the learned Single Judge, on the arbitrary action

of the appellant-Corporation are further cemented by

us on account of additional information received by

way of affidavits.

13. Thus there is no plausible reason to

interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, who,

while exercising extraordinary powers under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, has reached out to

grant justice to a person who while waiting for his

-9- 2025:HHC:27091

due turn was deprived of his rights of appointment to

the post of the Clerk by offering him a Class-IV post

and taking the plea that there was no vacancy. The

.

defence taken by the appellant-Corporation that there

was no vacancy, as such, thus, all would go on to

show that it was all done to accommodate certain set

of individuals.

14.

In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal.

However, we refrain from imposing costs.

15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any, shall also stand disposed of.

(G.S. Sandhawalia)

Chief Justice

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge August 07, 2025

[Bhardwaj]