Date Of Decision: 25.8.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7618 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 25.8.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 25 August, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                     2025:HHC:29130



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                  CWP No.14363 of 2024




                                                                 .
                                             Date of Decision: 25.8.2025





    _____________________________________________________________________
    Virender Kumar
                                                                  .........Petitioner





                                     Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
                                                               .......Respondents

    Coram





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?

    For the Petitioner:       Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocate.

    For the respondents:      Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.

                              Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
                              Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr.
                              Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
    ___________________________________________________________________________


    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main reliefs:

"(i) That the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-18) passed by the respondent No. 3 -Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (H.P.) may kindly

be quashed and set-aside being arbitrary, illegal, full of contradictions, discriminatory and violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court(s) in numerous cases as well as policy framed by the Govt. of HP with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds, by issuing writ Certiorari;

(ii) That the respondents/ competent authority may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds by taking into consideration the actual annual family income of the petitioner

-2- 2025:HHC:29130

to the extent of Rs.1,25,000/- which income was submitted to the respondent-department by the petitioner at the time of

.

applying for compassionate appointment, strictly in light of the

latest judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWPOA No. 7821/2019 titled as Jaswinder Singh vs. State of HP & others. Therefore, the annual fresh

income as supplied by the DTO, Mandi-respondent No. 5 for the year 2023-24 to the respondent No. 4 without consent and permission of the family pension holder, Smt. Meena Devi

(mother of the petitioner), on the basis of which, claim of the petitioner has been rejected, may kindly be held to be wrong, illegal and null & void; resultantly, the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for his appointment on compassionate grounds in

accordance with the instructions of the Finance Department,

dated 18.07.2014, by issuing writ of Mandamus;

(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner

against a suitable post of Class-IV on compassionate grounds keeping in view his academic qualification & driving skills in accordance with the compassionate policy or in the alternative,

the benefits of the judgment dated 08.02.2019 delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158-16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc.

Etc., may kindly be extended in favour of the petitioner from due date i.e; when the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was found complete in all respects in the year 2015, with all consequential benefits including seniority, as the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 15.06.2013 but delay in not appointing him has occurred on the part of the respondents, and justice be done.

(iv) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears to the

-3- 2025:HHC:29130

petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, flowing out of deemed appointment of the petitioner from due date, which may

.

kindly be reckoned, when the case of the petitioner for his

compassionate appointment was found complete in all respects, in the year 2015, as is evident from Annex. P-18 dated 16.10.2024 & justice be done."

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that father

of the petitioner, who was serving the respondent department as

Beldar, died in harness on 3.11.2012. Petitioner being Legal Heir of

the aforesaid deceased employee applied for compassionate

appointment on 15.6.2013, in terms of policy framed by the

Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since respondents failed to

consider the case of the petitioner despite repeated requests, petitioner

approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6030 of 2023, titled

Virender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which

came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 5.9.2023 (Annexure P-13),

whereby direction came to be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the

case of the petitioner within four weeks. In the afore background,

respondents vide office order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-18),

proceeded to decide the case of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment. Since income of the petitioner was found to be more

than prescribed limits, his prayer for compassionate appointment was

rejected vide afore order dated 18.8.2024. In the aforesaid

background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

-4- 2025:HHC:29130

proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein

above.

.

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel

for the petitioner is that respondents wrongly applied the policy of

2009 and 2019, while deciding case of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment, who admittedly had become eligible for

compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in

2012/2013. While referring to income certificate (Annexure P-5)

issued by the Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Dogra, states that since income of the

petitioner was not more than Rs.1,25,000/-, per annum, coupled with

the fact that policy in vogue at the time of death of father of the

petitioner, also provided for maximum income of Rs. 1,25,000/- per

annum, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to reject the

case of the petitioner on the ground of income criteria.

4. While refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

Advocate General, specifically referred to reply filed by respondents

No.1 to 4 filed under the signature of Superintending Engineer, Jal

Shakti, Sundernagar, to state that case of the petitioner was

considered strictly in terms of the policy in vogue, at the time of death

of father of the petitioner, but since petitioner exceeded income

-5- 2025:HHC:29130

criteria, he was rightly not considered for compassionate appointment

in the year 2015, which thereafter was considered as per revised policy

.

of 7.3.2019 (Annexure R-II) read with OM dated 1.11.2019 (Annexure

R-III) and it was found that the annual family income of the petitioner

exceeded the income criteria, therefore, he was found not eligible and

rejection of his case was conveyed to the petitioner. While referring to

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State

of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617, Mr. Rajan Kahol, submits that

Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore judgment has held that the norms,

prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be

basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. Since

petitioner submitted his application in the year 2015, enclosing

therewith income certificate and Legal Heir certificate, same rightly

came to be considered in light of policy in vogue at the relevant time.

He further submitted that deceased employee had three members i.e.

wife, son and married daughter. Total income of the deceased family

was given Rs.1,25,000/- as per income certificate dated 10.2.2015

issued by the Executive Magistrate Kotli, District Mandi, Himachal

Pradesh, therefore, in 2015, total annual family income as per

certificate submitted by the petitioner late Sh. Virender Kumar i.e. Rs.

1,25,000/- was exceeding the limit of two members family (Rs.

31,250/- per person). Even the family size if considered to be three

members, income of Rs.1,25,000/- would cross the limit of Rs.

-6- 2025:HHC:29130

93,750/- (by taking individual income @ Rs. 31,250/-) on the basis of

Government/Finance Department Instructions issued in August 2013.

.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record, this Court finds that though father of the

petitioner had died in 2012, but petitioner herein had submitted

application in the year 2015, not in the year 2013 as has been claimed

in the petition. Policy of 2009, firstly came to be amended in the year

2019.

In 2009 Policy, minimum income criteria, was Rs.1,25,000/-

per annum, for a family of four persons. Though learned counsel for

the petitioner repeatedly attempted to argue that case of the petitioner

was wrongly considered in light of Policy of 2019, but this court is not

persuaded to agree with him for the reason that though in terms of

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh

(supra), policy, at the time of submission of application, shall be

applicable, but even, if it is presumed that policy in vogue at the time

of death of deceased employee was to be taken into consideration, no

prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioner

because even in the year 2015, policy of 2009, which ultimately came

to be amended in the year 2019, was applicable in the case of the

petitioner. No doubt, income certificate submitted by the petitioner

reveals that at the time of death of the deceased employee, annual

income of the family of the deceased employee was Rs.1,25,000/- and

such, income certificate was qua the family of three persons i.e. wife

-7- 2025:HHC:29130

son and daughter. Since daughter of the deceased employee stood

married prior to his death, family of only two members can be said to

.

have been left after death of the deceased employee. Since as per

annual income as certified by the Executive Magistrate, Rs.

1,25,0000/- was to be considered the income of four persons, which

comes individually to be Rs.31,250/- per person, no illegality can be

said to have been committed by the respondents while concluding that

income of the petitioner is more than the prescribed limit because now

income of Rs. 1,25,000/- can be said to be of two persons i.e. mother

and son, which is definitely more than Rs.62,500/- i.e. 31250/- per

person. Even if the married daughter is also included in the family,

three members of the family would cross the limit of Rs.93,750/-, by

taking individual income as Rs 31,250/-. For a family of four, income

has been fixed as Rs.1,25,000/-, but in the case at hand, family of

three including married daughter has crossed the limit of Rs.

93,750/-, which is admittedly beyond prescribed limit.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no

illegality in the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 and as such, same

is upheld. Accordingly, present petition fails and dismissed, so also

pending applications, if any.

    August 25, 2025                                   (Sandeep Sharma),
         (manjit)                                            Judge