[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

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

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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,

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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."

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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:

      2025:HHC:42903                                                           REPORTABLE

     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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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.

      2025:HHC:42903                                                              REPORTABLE

                      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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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."

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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





      2025:HHC:42903                                                      REPORTABLE

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

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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;

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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].

2025:HHC:42903 REPORTABLE

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