Himachal Pradesh High Court
Khubwati vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 24 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:24049 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No: 335 of 2024
Reserved on: 28.05.2025
Announced: 24.07.2025
_______________________________________________________________________
.
Khubwati Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Appellant-writ petitioner, Khubwati, has come
up before this Court in instant appeal, assailing the
judgment dated 21.11.2023, [referred to as Impugned
judgment] passed by the Learned Single Judge in
CWP No.7850 of 2022, In re: Khubwati versus the
State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby,
the claim of appellant-writ petitioner for compassionate
appointment was dismissed, by recording a finding
that the claim was time barred and, therefore, the
rejection orders dated 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8 and
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-2- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
26.08.2022, Annexure P-13, do not suffer from any
perversity or illegality and did not call for any
interference.
.
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT [CWP No
7850 OF 2022]:
2. Mother of the Appellant-writ petitioner, Late
Smt. Heera Devi, was appointed as a Peon in the
office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies at
Kullu on 26.07.1973 and she died during the course
of employment on 20.06.2009. After her death, the
appellant applied for release of family pension and
other dues on 22.12.2009 {Annexure P-4} but this
prayer was declined on 01.02.2017, Annexure P-5,
[in writ file] on the ground, that the appellant-writ
petitioner claims herself to be a divorcee but she
failed to submit any divorce-deed.
CLAIM FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT:
2(i). In addition, it is averred that appellant-
writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment
to Respondent No.3 on 04.01.2010, Annexure P-7 and
another application through relative on 23.03.2010
but nothing was done. It is averred that she submitted
one more application for compassionate appointment
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-3- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
on 20.03.2013, but the same was rejected by the
Respondents on 28.02.2014, [Annexure P-8, in writ
file], on the ground, that the claim was time barred
.
as it was submitted beyond three years of death
of her mother. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted
another application/representation for compassionate
appointment on 02.06.2015, Annexure P-9.
2(ii). It is averred that the State Government
notified New Policy of Compassionate
on 07.03.2019, Annexure P-11, in which, the time
r Appointmentlimit for submitting application for employment was
increased from 3 years to 4 years and therefore, the
appellant-writ petitioner again applied for compassionate
appointment on 29.07.2019, Annexure P-12, but the
same was rejected by the Respondents on 26.08.2022,
[Annexure P-13 in writ file], on the ground, that
the appellant was bound to make an application for
compassionate appointment within three years from
the date of death of her mother, [who died on
20.09.2009] whereas she submitted an application
for employment beyond three years on 20.03.2013
and therefore, her claim was rejected, as being time-
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-4- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
barred.
2(iii). Rejection dated 26.08.2022, Annexure P-13,
was assailed by the appellant-writ petitioner in
.
CWP No.7850 of 2022, on the ground that as per
Government of India Instructions dated 16.01.2013,
Annexure P-14, and based on this, her case should
have been considered and also in view of the
Division Bench judgement of this Court, in CWP
No. 3100 of 2020, titled Mamta Devi versus State
of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, decided on 28.10.2020,
Annexure P-15, which entitles the married daughters
for employment on compassionate grounds, by extending
similar treatment. Other documents i.e. Annexure P-9
(colly), was placed on record to assert her claim for
compassionate employment in writ petition, with the
prayer for giving appointment to her on compassionate
grounds.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE WRIT
COURT:
3. State Authorities-Respondents filed a Reply
-Affidavit dated 30.05.2023 of Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Reply-Affidavit
admits that the mother of appellant-writ petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-5- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
joined service as a peon on 26.07.1993 and she
died on 20.06.2009, while working as such in the
office of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Kullu.
.
3(i). Reply-Affidavit states in clear terms that
the appellant-writ petitioner applied for job for the
first time on 20.03.2013. However, the stand of
appellant-writ petitioner that she applied for job on
04.01.2010 Annexure P-7, was denied, with averments
by the State Authorities.
r to
that application dated 04.01.2010 was never received
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the
first application dated 20.03.2013 for compassionate
appointment was processed but her claim was
rejected on 10.06.2013, [Annexure R-II, First Rejection
Order] on the ground, that appellant-writ petitioner
had applied for job beyond three years from the
date of death of her mother and therefore, the same
was time-barred as per Clause 8 of Compassionate
Appointment Policy dated 18.01.1990. Likewise, the
representation dated 28.01.2014, Annexure R-IV, was
examined with reference to the application alleged
to have been submitted on 04.01.2010 but after
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-6- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
scrutinizing the records and the fact that no such
application was never received in the department,
the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected
.
on 28.02.2014, [Annexure R-8, Second Rejection
Order in writ file], on the ground that the application
for employment was made beyond the period of three
years in the policy. Reply further states appellant
submitted another representation to the Chief Minister
wherein, directions were given to examine the case
and based on this, the Registrar Cooperative Societies
forwarded the case to the Additional Chief Secretary
(Cooperation) on 15.03.2016, Annexure R-V, stating
that the appellant had applied for job beyond three
years and the claim was time-barred coupled with
the fact that the appellant-writ petitioner did not
fulfil the educational qualification of matriculation
as she was middle pass only and in this scenario,
the case was sent for relaxation and after examining
the matter, the Joint Secretary [Cooperation] directed
Registrar Cooperative Societies on 19.03.2016, Annexure
R-VI, that the time limit of three years for applying
for job on compassionate grounds {Clause 8} as in
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-7- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
Policy dated 18.01.1990, was reiterated as per OM
dated 22.05.2015, modified on 24.02.2016 mandating
that time limit of three years for applying for job
.
on compassionate grounds cannot be relaxed. In view
of this, the Assistant Registrar addressed a letter on
25.10.2016, Annexure R-VII, affirming that application
dated 04.01.2010 alleged to be an application for
the job was never received in this office; and in
view of this, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner
was rejected again on 02.12.2016, [Annexure R-VIII,
Third Rejection Order], on the ground, that once
the appellant-writ petitioner had not applied for job
within the time frame of three years, in terms of
Clause 8 of the policy of compassionate appointment
dated 18.01.1990, by reiterating the time limit on
24.02.2016, which could not be relaxed. Even after
coming into force of the New Policy on 07.03.2019,
Annexure P-11, she submitted a fresh application
on 29.07.2019, Annexure P-12, but her case was
again rejected on 26.08.2022, [Annexure P-13, Fourth
Rejection Order] on the ground, that the appellant
-writ petitioner applied for employment on 20.03.2013,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-8- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
i.e. beyond time limit of three years and even no
relaxation in such time limit was permissible, and
therefore, the case for compassionate appointment
.
was rejected in accordance with the Policy. In this
background, the State Authorities have prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
REBUTTAL BEFORE THE WRIT COURT:
4. In Rejoinder, the Appellant-writ petitioner
averred that once as per Clause 8 of the Policy
dated 18.01.1990, Annexure P-1, the relaxation was
given to those dependents, who at the time of death
of deceased employee were minor to apply for job
within three years of attaining majority by extending
similar relaxation to the appellant-writ petitioner. The
claim for job on compassionate grounds on the
ground of being a married daughter was reiterated
in view of the judgment in case of Mamta Devi’s
(supra) [CWP No.3100 of 2020], Annexure P-15.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2023:
5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the CWP
No. 7850 of 2022, filed by appellant-writ petitioner
on 11.10.2022, on the ground, that the appellants
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
-9- ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
mother died on 20.06.2009 and she was supposed
to apply for job on compassionate grounds within
three years of the death of her mother but since
.
she applied for job for first time only on 20.03.2013
therefore, the claim being time-barred was rejected
in terms of Clause 8 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990,
Annexure P-1 and the time limit of three years for
submitting application for job was not relaxable. In
these circumstances, Learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition, by upholding the assailed rejection
orders.
6. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED
JUDGEMENT IN LPA:
Learned Counsel for the appellant-writ
petitioner has assailed the Impugned Judgement dated
21.11.2023 dismissing her claim for compassionate
appointment on the grounds, that firstly, the writ
petition has been dismissed without appreciating
the facts ; and secondly, the rejection of claim ignoring
that the appellant had submitted an application for
compassionate appointment on 4.01.2010 {Ann P-7}
within three years of death of her mother; and
thirdly, rejection of claim by invoking delay and
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
laches when, appellant had made representation from
time to time is erroneous; and fourthly, the appellant,
being a married daughter is entitled for appointment
.
in terms of the judgment in the case of Mamta Devi
[supra] and fifthly, the time-limit of three years for
submitting application for job was relaxed in case
of minor for three years after attaining majority,
then, the appellant was entitled for relaxation in time-
benefit of
r judgmentto
limit ; and sixthly, the appellant was entitled for
in case of Surinder Kumar
[CWP No. 9094 of 2013, decided on 06.10.2015 as
referred to in the rejection orders dated 2.12.2016,
Annexure R-VIII] ; and lastly, the time-line of three
years for applying for a job under Clause 8 of
1990 policy was increased to four years under the
Revised-New Policy of 2019 and therefore, the case
of appellant-writ petitioner was erroneously rejected
by the Learned Single Judge as time-barred. In this
backdrop, the prayer was made to accept the appeal,
by setting aside the judgement passed by the Learned
Single Judge.
7. Heard, Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Learned Counsel
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
for the appellant-writ petitioner and Ms. Priyanka
Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State Authorities.
.
ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
8. Based on the material on record, and after
taking into account the applicable policies and the
mandate of law, this Court proceeds to analyze the
contentions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant-
writ petitioner here-in-under:-
8(i). First contention of Learned Counsel for
the appellant is that the Learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition without appreciating the
facts.
The above plea is misplaced, for the reason,
that Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition, after duly appreciating the factual matrix
and applicable policies for compassionate appointment.
Perusal of Impugned Judgement reveals that Learned
Single Judge has duly considered the factual matrix
that the mother of the appellant died during service
on 20.6.2009 and the appellant-writ petitioner applied
for job on compassionate grounds for the first time
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 12 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
on 20.03.2013. Based on Clause 8 of the applicable
Policy dated 18.1.1990, the Learned Single Judge
held that since the application dated 20.03.2013 was
.
submitted beyond three years of the death of her
mother therefore, claim was rejected as time-barred
on 10.06.2013, {Annexure R-II}.
8(ii). Learned Single Judge has recorded a
finding that the first rejection order dated 10.6.2013
was not assailed by the appellant-writ petitioner and
was allowed to attain finality. Learned Single Judge
noted that instead of assailing this rejection, the
appellant-writ petitioner made a fresh representation
on 28.01.2014, {Annexure R-IV}, which was rejected
on 28.02.2014 {Annexure P-8} and thereafter she
submitted another representation in the year 2016,
which was turned down on 02.12.2016, {Annexure
R-VIII}. The Learned Single Judge also noticed that
appellant-writ petitioner kept on making representation
one after the other without choosing to assail the
first rejection order dated 10.06.2013 {Annexure R-II},
which gave a cause of action to the appellant as
her case was rejected in view of the applicable policy
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 13 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
dated 18.01.1990 {Clause 8 thereof} and the inaction
of not-questioning the rejection and allowing it to
become stale, would neither revive the cause of
.
action nor the state claims which suffer from the
vires of delay and laches, be reopened by filing
a writ petition after a long lapse in 2022, and
even the subsequent representations were of no
consequence as per the mandate of Constitutional
of SS Rathore
r to
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the casevs State of Madhya Pradesh
(1989) 4 SCC 582. In this backdrop, the judgement
passed by Learned Single Judge, being well reasoned,
and passed after appreciation of factual and legal
matrix and the conduct of the appellant in placing
distorted and misleading facts, refrains this Court
from showing indulgence in instant proceedings.
9. Second contention of Learned Counsel for
appellant is that Learned Single Judge has altogether
ignored that the appellant-writ petitioner had applied
for job on 04.01.2010 [Annexure P-7], within three
years of date of death and therefore, her claim was
held to be time-barred, erroneously.
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
The above contention is contrary to records.
Perusal of Reply-Affidavit reveals that the application
dated 04.01.2010 was never received in the department.
.
Perusal of remarks/endorsement made by the office
in communication on 28.01.2014 Annexure R-IV, and
dated 19.03.2016 Annexure R-VI, and communication
dated 25.10.2025, Annexure R-VII, collectively go on
to establish that the application dated 04.01.2010
and 23.03.2010
{Annexure P-7, colly}
received in the office. Even, the appellants have not
r were never
placed on record any cogent and convincing material
to establish that the applications dated 04.01.2010
and 23.03.2010 were in-fact and truly submitted.
In absence of any material to establish that this
application was in fact submitted therefore, this Court
is left with no option but to infer that the appellant
-writ petitioner has placed distorted and incorrect
facts, just to secure favorable orders, which is abuse
of process of this Court.
DISTORTED FACTS AND COMING WITH UNCLEAN
HANDS DISENTILES APPELLANT FOR RELIEF:
9(i). The appellant has not come with clean
hands, which is an abuse of process of law. In
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 15 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
these circumstances, this Court would have imposed
exemplary costs, but in the peculiar facts of this
case, this Court takes a lenient view and refrains
.
from imposing exemplary costs. A litigant, alike the
appellant cannot play hide and seek with the Court.
The conduct of the appellant in placing distorted
facts or twisted facts and in not making full and
fair, candid and clear and true disclosure of all
the facts and/or in placing non-existing facts with
intention to seek favorable orders or to mislead this
Court, is sufficient to disentitle the appellant, for
the equitable and discretionary relief in Article 226
and thereafter in the intra-court proceedings, in
view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Hari Narain vs Badri Dass, AIR
1963 SC 1558 [Para 7]; and in Prestige Lights
Ltd vs State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449;
and in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare
Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC
560 ; and in K. D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India
Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481 [Paras 34 to 39] ; and
in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
(2010) 2 SCC 114, [Paras 9-24] and in Manohar
Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557
[Paras 48-50]; and ; and in Abhudya Sanstha vs
.
Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145; [Para 22] and
the above principle was reiterated in K Jayaram
& Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority (2022)
12 SCC 815 [Para 10] and in Auroville Foundation
vs Natasha Storey, 2025 INSC 348 [Paras 9 &10]
fabricated
r and to
that an attempt to deceive the Court by placing
forged document was deprecated ;
and “doctrine of clean hands and/or in placing
distorted/twisted facts/non-existent facts is applicable
with full force, to every proceedings before any
judicial forum” and a litigant, alike the appellant-writ
petitioner, who did not approach this Court with
clean hands, by pleading incorrect and distorted
facts, {when, the application dated 04.01.2010, and
23.03.2010, alleged to have been submitted, was
inquired into and it transpired that these requests
were never received by the official respondents as
per the stand in the Reply Affidavit. Nothing was
placed on record by appellant to establish/re-assert
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 17 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
her stand and therefore, these applications appear
to have been submitted as an afterthought, just
to mislead this Court, which is deprecated.
.
In these circumstances, aforesaid improper
conduct of appellant-writ petitioner, is sufficient to
disallow the equitable and discretionary relief to
the appellants, in Article 226 proceedings and now
in Intra-Court appeal. Accordingly, the plea of the
appellants-writ
petitioner, being
rightly disallowed by Learned Single Judge and the
r misconceived was
contention of Learned Counsel is turned down and
the impugned judgment is upheld.
10. Third contention of Learned Counsel for
the appellant is that the Learned Single Judge has
dismissed the claim for employment on compassionate
grounds by invoking the principle of delay and
latches, erroneously.
The above plea is misplaced, as firstly,
mother of appellant-writ petitioner died on 20.06.2009
and as per Clause 8 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990
{Annexure P-1 in writ file}, appellant-writ petitioner
was to required submit an application for employment
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 18 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
within three years of the death of government servant
(20.06.2009) and the aforesaid period of three years
elapsed on 19.06.2012 whereas the appellant-writ
.
petitioner submitted as application for employment
only on 20.03.2013 beyond the time line of three
years and therefore, it was rejected on 10.06.2013
{Annexure R-II}; and secondly, the rejection order dated
10.6.2013 was not assailed by the appellant and the
same was allowed to attain finality ; and thirdly, the
appellant-writ petitioner made a fresh representation
on 28.01.2014, {Annexure R-IV}, which was rejected
on 28.02.2014 {Annexure P-8} and even this rejection
order was not assailed by the appellant ; and fourthly
appellant submitted another representation to the
Chief Minister on 15.03.2016, {Annexure R-V}, on
which the concerned authorities were directed on
20.06.2015 to examine the matter and pursuant to
this, Registrar Cooperation forwarded the case to
Additional Chief Secretary (Cooperation) on 15.03.2016,
Annexure R-V, reiterating that claim was time-barred
in terms of Clause 8 of 1990 policy, which this
mandatory stipulated of the time limit was reiterated
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
in OM dated 24.02.2016 coupled with the fact that
she did not possess the educational qualification of
matriculation, whereas she was middle pass and
.
therefore, in these circumstances, the rejection of
her case on 2.12.2016 {Annexure R-VIII}, for having
raised a claim beyond the time line of three years
was time barred and educational ineligibility, also
added to negating the claim of the appellant-writ
petitioner.
r SUCCESSIVE
STALE CAUSE CANNOT BE REVIVED BY MAKING
REPRESENTATION(S)
NON – STATUTORY REPRESENTATION:
INCLUDING
10(i). Above narrative reveals that though the
claim of the appellant-writ petitioner was rejected
by State Authorities for the first time on 10.06.2013
{Annexure R-II} and she chose not to question the
same. Even, second rejection order dated 28.02.2014
{Annexure P-8} was not assailed. Instead thereof,
she submitted a representation to the Chief Minister,
which led to passing of the third rejection order
on 02.12.2016, {Annexure R-VIII}. Even after this,
she submitted a fresh representation to authorities
on 27.09.2019 {Annexure P-12}, which led to passing
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 20 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
of fourth rejection on 26.08.2022, {Annexure P-13}.
Once the cause of action accrued to the appellant
on issuance of the first rejection order on 10.06.2013
.
{Annexure R-II} but instead of assailing the same,
she chose to make representations, one after the
other, which were also rejected, then, the repeated
representations and the rejection thereof with same
stand, will neither give rise to fresh cause nor
will it revive the cause of action, which accrued
in the year 2013, as per the Constitutional Bench
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
S S Rathore vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) 4
SCC 582. This principle has been reiterated in
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Rajmati Singh (2023)
20 SCC 817 [Paras 12-20]. Appellant was supposed
to be cautious and she was not to wait indefinitely
for espousing her grievance from the date the cause
of action or affectation of her right began on passing
of first rejection orders on 10.06.2013 {Annexure R-II}.
However, once the appellant had chosen not to
avail legal remedy but to wait and to make repeated
representations, including non-statutory representation
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
dated 2.06.2015 {Annexure P-9}, which was rejected
on 02.12.2016, {Annexure R-8} then, the rejection
of non-statutory representation(s) will neither extend
.
cause of action nor limitation, in the light of the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Chief Executive Officer & Ors vs S Lalitha, 2025
SCC Online SC 916.
ACQUISCENCE BARS RIGHT AND REMEDY:
10(ii).
Moreover, the material on record reveals
that though the rejection order(s) were passed on
10.06.2013 {Annexure R-II} and then on 28.02.2014
{Annexure P-8} and on 02.12.2016, {Annexure R-VIII}
but the appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned
these orders before the appropriate judicial forums
but she slept over the matter and has failed to
do an act which is required by law, so as to
assert her right, so as to stand in the way of
the appellant for getting relief and remedy. In this
view of the matter, the Learned Single Judge has
rightly dismissed the writ petition filed in the
year 2022, on the ground of delay and laches. Even
acquiescence of the appellants adds to negating the
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
right and remedy of the appellant-writ petitioner in
instant intra-court appeal, in view of the mandate
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Union
.
of India vs N Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 {Paras
20 to 26}. In the above backdrop, the Impugned
Judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge,
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay
and laches does not call for any interference.
11.
Fourth contention of Learned Counsel is
that Learned Single Judge has ignored the material
aspect that she was a married daughter and that
being so, her case ought to have been considered
for appointed in terms of the judgment in case of
Mamta Devi [CWP No. 3100 of 2020], Annexure P-15
which was followed in the cases of Sapna Kumari
[CWP No 4521 of 2021] and in Rani Devi [CWPOA
No 5378 of 2020] decided on 09.09.2024}.
The above contention of Learned Counsel
by placing reliance on the judgements in the cases
of Mamta Devi, Sapna and Rani Devi (supra), is
misplaced. Firstly, the aforesaid judgements are not
applicable and the same are distinguishable on facts.
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 23 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
Secondly, the factual matrix in aforesaid judgement
in case of Mamta Devi (supra), reveals that her
father, Late Shri Thakur Dass died on 08.05.2019
.
and as per Revised-New Policy in 07.03.2019 though
she applied for job within four years yet her case
was rejected on 22.06.2020, on the plea, that there
was no provision to give employment to a married
daughter, as per Clause 2 of Revised Policy and
this rejection was assailed by filing the writ petition
in the year 2020; and likewise, a perusal of the
judgement in case of Sapna Devi (supra), indicates
that her father, Late Shri Prem Lal died on 14.12.2020
and even as per the Revised-New Policy issued on
07.03.2019 though she applied for job within four
years (on 20.03.2021) yet her case was rejected
on 22.07.2021, on the plea that married daughter
was not entitled for employment assistance and she
assailed the rejection by filing writ petition in the
year 2021; and similarly, a perusal of the judgement
in the case of Rani Devi (supra), indicates that
her father, Late Shri Jagat Ram died on 03.08.2004
and as per the Un-Revised Policy dated 18.01.1990
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
though she applied for job within three year yet
her case was rejected, on the plea that the married
daughter was not entitled for employment assistance
.
and she assailed the rejection by filing OA before
Administrative Tribunal in the year 2018 ; whereas
in the instant case, the appellant-writ petitioner
Khubwati’s mother, Late Smt. Heera Devi died on
20.06.2009 and though she was bound to apply
for job within
three years upto 19.06.2012
the appellant-writ petitioner applied for job for first
r but
time on 20.03.2013 (Annexure R-1), i.e. beyond three
years, which was dehors the prescription in Clause
8 of Policy dated 18.01.1990, which was reiterated
in OM dated 24.02.2016 {referred in Annexures
R-VI & R-VIII} coupled with the fact that out of
four rejection orders, two of them were not assailed
which attained finality and even the second rejection
order dated 28.02.2014 {Annexure P-8} was assailed
by way of a writ petition filed in the year 2022,
and therefore, the writ petition was validly dismissed
by Learned Single Judge and thirdly, the mandate
in the aforesaid judgements will not be of any
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
assistance to the appellant-writ petitioner solely on
the plea of being a married daughter without having
applied for job within the time line of three years;
.
and fourthly, the appellant-writ petitioner has no
vested right to claim appointment on compassionate
grounds dehors the Policy/Scheme, as in this case;
and fifthly, the mandate of law in the aforesaid
judgments comes to the aid of those who had applied
for job within three years from the date of death
of deceased relative but their case was erroneously
rejected by the state authorities on the plea that
dependant seeking job was married daughter and
was thus not covered under the Policy/Scheme, and
moreover, when, as per the mandate of law in
State of Maharashtra versus Madhuri Maruti,
(2022) SCC Online SC 1327, {Paras 4-13 & 14} claim
for compassionate appointment by a married daughter
years after the death of deceased employee was not
tenable, as in this case; and sixthly, the aforesaid
judgements cannot be permitted to be invoked, so
as to enable a dependant, who was not desirous of
seeking a job and chose not to apply for the same
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
within three years of the date of death of relative
in terms of Clause 8 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990,
which was applicable at relevant time; and seventhly,
.
the mandate of law in the aforesaid judgements
cannot be stretched to an infinite level, so as to
reopen all past cases, resulting in unsettling the
settled position; and eighthly, even the Policy dated
18.1.1990, Annexure P-1, besides, the prime test of
indigency, the consideration, can be categorized into
two broad stages, prescribing “conditions regarding
eligibility” and “conditions regarding selection of
eligible for appointment”. So far as the first stage
is concerned, a person has to satisfy the “conditions
regarding eligibility”, which are spelt out in Clause 2,
defining “priority dependants” read with Clause 5 (a)
to (d) laying down “other conditions”, and also by
adhering to the mandatory “time-line of three years
for applying for job” as per Clause 8 of the policy.
So far as, the second stage is concerned, an eligible
dependant is required to satisfy “conditions regarding
selection of eligibles for appointment”, by adopting
a selective approach on various parameters indicated
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
in Clause 10, and if needed to invoke relaxation
{only qua permissible four eventualities i.e. recruitment
procedure, ban on recruitment, educational qualification
.
for Class-IV & widow and age relaxation}, as per
Clause 7 before making appointment. In the above
backdrop, once the Policy of 18.01.1990, (supra),
contemplated two stages and if a person fails to
pass the first stage of eligibility, then, in that event,
second stage mandating consideration by resorting to
selective approach towards appointment need not be
necessarily resorted to, as in this case and lastly,
concession of compassionate employment cannot be
extended to the appellant-writ petitioner herein, dehors
the applicable Policy/Scheme, reads as under:-
“BELATED REQUESTS FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT:
8. Requests of employment assistance
should be received in the Department
concerned within three years of the deathof the Government servant. In case where
none of the sons /daughters of the deceased
Government servant attain majority (Age of
18 years) at the time of the death of
the government servant, the time limit for
receipt of request for employment assistance
in department concerned will be attainment
of age of 21 years by the eldest son
/unmarried daughter. No relaxation will be
allowed in entertaining request beyond the::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
above age except in the case of son/un-
married daughter/widow of deceased Govt.
servants belonging to the difficult areas as
laid down the transfer policy.”
In these circumstances, the reliance on
.
the aforesaid judgements is misplaced, on facts of
instant matter, as discussed above.
12. Fifth contention, of Learned Counsel for
the appellant-writ petitioner is that the Learned
Single Judge has ignored the fact that as per the
Policy dated 18.01.1990 (Annexure P-1), once three
years relaxation, has been given to the dependants
who were minor at the time of death till the date
of attaining age of majority, then, similar relaxation
should have been given to appellant-writ petitioner
which has led to an erroneous order.
12(i). The first part of the above contention of
Learned Counsel for appellant is devoid of any
merit, in view of the fact that firstly, the power of
relaxation can be exercised by an authority only
for purposes indicated in an enactment, rules or
policy ; and secondly, a perusal of the policy dated
18.01.1990, Annexure P-1, provides for relaxation
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 29 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
as per Clause 7 (a) to (d) only to meet out any of
the three defined eventualities {i.e. relaxation in
recruitment process; relaxation in ban on filling
.
posts and relaxation in educational qualifications in
genuine cases, for Class-IV posts or in case of
widow}; and thirdly, even Policy dated 18.01.1990,
does not contains any provision for relaxing Clause
8 of the Policy which prescribes time limit of
three years from
to the date
employee in applying for the job ; and fourthly, a
r of death of deceased
perusal of OM dated 24.02.2016 {as in Annexure
R-VI/VIII} prohibits relaxation in time limit of three
years in submitting an application for job on
compassionate grounds; and fifthly, even Clause 7
of Revised Policy dated 07.03.2019, Annexure P-11,
{though not applicable in instant case, as discussed
herein}, also prohibits relaxation in time-limit in
applying for job on compassionate grounds ; and
sixthly, in absence of any provision for relaxation
{qua time limit in submission of application for job
in Clause 8} and in case, relaxation is circumscribed
by conditions, then, the aforesaid conditions have
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
to be satisfied before permitting relaxation, which
are absent in instant case and therefore, the plea
of appellant-writ petitioner for relaxation is contrary
.
to the mandate of law, in the cases of, Inspector
General (Karmik) and others versus Prahalad Mani
Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162, {Para 7} ; Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others
versus Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and another (2009)
3 SCC 35, {Para 44} ; and relaxation can neither
be claimed nor granted so as to dispense with or
dilute the minimum essentialities so as to throw entire
policy or norms or rules overboard or to atrophied
the norms is impermissible, in view of the principle
outlined in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another
versus State of Assam and others, (2013) 2 SCC 156.
PARITY IMPERMISSIBLE BETWEEN DIFFERENT
CLASSES OF PERSONS_DEPENDANTS {MAJOR]
VIS-A-VIS DEPENDANT [MINOR]:
12(ii). Second part of the contention of Learned
Counsel for appellant-writ petitioner that once Clause
8 of 1990 Policy provides for granting relaxation/
extension of three years period for applying for job
to dependant who was minor, at the time of death
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
of deceased-employee-relative till he attains majority
{18 years}, and by enabling such a dependant to
apply for job within three years therefrom {21 years}
.
then, similar relaxation or extension in submitting
application for compassionate appointment was to
be given to the appellant is misconceived when, both
set of dependants constitute two different classes
and there cannot be any parity or equation amongst
unequals. Moreover, this plea stands strength from
the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another
versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, in the
following terms:-
4. The High Court, during the course of the
judgment, framed as many as nine issues
which were in the following terms:
“(i) Whether the amount of family pension
and other retiral benefits, received by
the family of the deceased-employee,
can be included in the family incomefor denying the compassionate
appointment?
(ii) to (vi) … not relevant…
(vii) Whether a person can claim
compassionate appointment after a
considerable delay?
(viii) to (ix) … … not relevant…
5. Insofar as the present appeal is
concerned, the State of Himachal
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 32 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
Pradesh has contested the decision
of the High Court on issues (i) and
(vii). Hence, for the purposes of this
appeal, the present judgment governs
only the above aspects of the case.
36. We are not impressed with the
.
submission that delay should not be
taken into account since Paragraph
8 of the Scheme contemplates that in
a situation where all the dependent
children of the deceased employee have
yet to attain the age of majority, the
time limit for submission of an application
is extended until the first of the children
attains the age of twenty one years. A
case where each of the children is
a minor falls in a different class
altogether. This cannot be equated
with a situation where a dependent
r of a deceased employee who was
a major on the date of death fails
to submit an application within a
reasonable period of time from the
death of the employee. This aspect of
delay has been dealt with in other
decisions of this Court, including State
of J&K Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5
SCC 766 and Local Administration
Department vs. M. Selvanayagam (2011)
13 SCC 42..”
12(iii). Upholding the condition of three years for
submitting claim for compassionate appointment in
the applicable Rule-Scheme or Policy to be justifiable
and logical, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Tinku versus State of Haryana and others, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3292, has held, in the following
terms:
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 33 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies
is to give immediate succour to the
family. When seen in this conspectus,
three years as has been laid down
from the date of death of the
employee for putting forth a claim
.
by a dependant, which, includes
attainment of majority as per the 1999
policy instructions issued by the
Government of Haryana cannot be
said to be in any case unjustified or
illogical, especially when, compassionate
appointment is not a vested right.
13. Last contention of Learned Counsel for
the appellant is that, the time-line of three years for
applying for a job on compassionate grounds under
Clause 8 of 1990 Policy was increased to four years
under Revised-New Policy of compassionate grounds
notified on 07.03.2019 and therefore, the appellant-
writ petitioner was to be granted benefit under the
Revised Policy of 2019 and this fact was ignored by
Learned Single Judge erroneously.
The above plea is devoid of any merit for
the reason, that the appellant-writ petitioner has
no right to claim benefit of the Revised-New Policy
of 2019, Annexure P-11. Further, the Revised-New
Policy of 2019 was to apply to those cases, which
were pending on the date of issuance of the revised
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 34 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
policy and such a case had not been decided earlier.
Even, the Revised Policy of 2019 cannot be applied
retrospectively so as cover the case of the appellant-
.
writ petitioner, where, the death of her mother took
place on 20.06.2009 and she had a right to apply
for job within three years from the date of death
of her mother before 19.06.2012 but since she
had applied for job for first time on 20.03.2013
(Annexure R-1) therefore, her application was validly
rejected for first time on 10.06.2013 (Annexure R-II)
as per Clause 8 of 1990 Policy, which was reiterated
to be mandatory as per the OM dated 24.02.2016.
Moreover, once the case of appellant stood rejected
under the Earlier Policy of 1990, on three occasions
{firstly on 10.06.2013, Annexure R-II; secondly on
28.02.2014, Annexure P-8 and thirdly on 02.12.2016,
Annexure R-VIII} prior to the issuance of Revised-
New Policy of 2019, then, finality has to be attached
even to administrative orders. Mere issuance of the
Revised Policy cannot confer any right on appellant
to claim reconsideration, as permitting such plea
shall amount to re-opening of stale claims, as in
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 35 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
this case. The appellant has neither been able to
point out the infringement of any provision in 1990
Policy, and the appellant-writ petitioner cannot seek
.
reconsideration of her case/claim dehors the 1990
Policy, which is impermissible.
Thus, in view of the factual matrix and
mandate of law, in cases of Prahalad Mani Tripathi,
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika (supra), the prescription of the time-limit
of three years for submitting application for job on
compassionate grounds, contained in Clause 8 of
1990 Policy is mandatory. In absence of any provision
for relaxation and in absence of any guidelines for
exercising relaxation of such Clause, then, in such
a scenario, the time-limit could neither be tinkered
with nor diluted. Even, the OM dated 24.02.2016
reiterates that the time-limit of 3 years for applying
for job is mandatory. In these circumstances, once
the appellant-writ petitioner had failed to submit
her application for job, within mandatory time-line
of three years from the date of death of her mother
then, the appellant has neither any locus standii
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 36 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
nor any right to seek relaxation in the prescribed
time-limit. Further, the plea of the appellant that
once a dependent, who was minor at the time of
.
death of deceased employee was deferred till he
attains the age of majority {18 years} and by enabling
him to apply for job within three years thereafter
{21 years} then, similar relaxation or extension in
submitting application for compassionate appointment
was to be given to the appellant also, is untenable.
The reason being that appellant, being a dependent
was a major on the date of death of her mother
but had failed to apply for job within time-limit of
three years of the death of her mother constitute
a different class altogether vis-à-vis a dependent
altogether who was minor on the date of death
of deceased employee and in such case, the right
to apply for job was deferred for three years till
he attains majority {18 years}, and by enabling him
to apply for job within three years therefrom {21
years}. While interpreting the provision of Clause
8 of 1990 Policy issued by the Respondent State,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in the
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 37 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
case of Shashi Kumar, which was reiterated in the
case of Tinku (supra), that there cannot be any
parity between a dependant who was major at the
.
time of death of deceased employee but had failed
to apply for job {alike appellant} vis-a-vis another
dependant who was minor at the time of death and
in whose case, the right to apply was deferred/
extended as both classes of dependants are altogether
different.
consideration
r Plea that
for to
job
the
on
appellant
compassionate
is entitled
grounds,
for
being a married daughter as per the mandate of
law in case of Mamta Devi, Annexure P-15 and the
judgements subsequent thereto, is of no assistance
to the appellant-writ petitioner, for the reason, that
solely because the appellant was married daughter
will not confer an ipso facto right, when, on facts
of instant case, the appellant had failed to apply
for job within the time limit of three years and
her inaction, lethargy and negligence cannot give
a leverage to the appellant dehors the applicable
policy/scheme. Even, the factual matrix in cases
of Mamta Devi and other subsequent judgements,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 38 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
are altogether different, wherein, dependant(s) therein
had applied for job within the time-limit of three
years of the death of deceased relative-employee but
.
their claim was rejected/denied to be not covered
as per policy whereas in instant case, the claim
of the appellant was rejected on the ground that
it was time-barred, for want of submission of an
application for job, within time frame as mandated
under the policy. Besides this, once the claim of the
appellant was rejected on four occasions and the
appellant chose not to assail the first rejection order
passed on 10.06.2013 but she proceeded to assail
second rejection order dated 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8,
by filing the writ petition only in the year 2022
therefore, the Learned Single Judge validly, dismissed
the claim, of the appellant herein for the job, in
view of delay and laches.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL:
14. Per contra, Learned State Counsel has
supported the Impugned Judgment dated 21.11.2023,
with submissions that the appellant has no vested
right of appointment and time limit of three years
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 39 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
for applying for the post from the date of death
of her mother as in Clause 8 of 1990 Policy was
mandatory. It is contended that the case of the
.
appellant was rejected on four occasions but two
of the rejection orders have not been assailed. It is
contended that even the Second Rejection Orders
passed on 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8, was assailed
for the first time by filing a writ petition in 2022.
It is contented that appellant cannot claim endless
compassion. Learned State Counsel asserts that the
appellant cannot claim a job dehors the policy. It
is further contended that permitting the claim of
appellant, dehors the applicable policy/scheme shall
certainly amount to rewriting the terms of 1990
Policy which is impermissible; and lastly even, no
mandamus can be issued when no legal right of
the appellant-writ petitioner has been violated under
applicable policy.
TWO OF THE FOUR REJECTION ORDERS NOT
ASSAILED:
14(i). Learned State Counsel contends that the
appellant has not assailed two of the four rejection
orders. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 40 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
was rejected for the first time on 10.06.2013, Annexure
R-II and secondly on 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8
and thirdly on 2.12.2016, Annexure R-VIII and lastly
.
on 26.08.2022, Annexure P-13 in the writ records.
Appellant-writ petitioner has assailed rejection orders
dated 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8, and rejection orders
dated 26.08.2022, Annexure P-13. Perusal of the writ
records reveals that since the two other rejection
r to
orders dated 10.06.2013, Annexure R-II and rejectionorders dated 2.12.2016, Annexure R-VIII have not
been assailed and therefore, they are inferred to have
had attained finality. Not laying a challenge to the
two rejection orders, shall definitely stand in the
way of the appellant, which in itself disentitles
the appellant to lay a challenge to the impugned
judgment and the same is enough to disallow the
claim of the appellant-writ petitioner in instant appeal
also.
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT NOT A SOURCE
OF RECRUITMENT – THERE CANNOT BE ENDLESS
COMPASSION:
14(ii). Second contention of Learned State Counsel
is that the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 41 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
died on 20.06.2009 while serving as Peon in office
of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kullu,
but appellant-writ petitioner slept over her rights
.
and she did not apply for compassionate appointment,
within the time limit of three years as per Clause
8 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990, (Annexure P-1).
She applied for job for the first time on 20.03.2013
(Annexure R-1). Since application for compassionate
appointment was time barred therefore, the same was
rightly rejected on 10.06.2013 (Annexure R-II) and
same rejection orders were reiterated on 28.02.2014
(Annexure P-8), then on 2.12.2016, Annexure R-VIII
and lastly on 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-13).
The mother of the appellant died about 15
years ago in the year 2009 in accordance with
the applicable norms/rules/policy and her case was
rejected on four occasions and the first rejection
was passed way back in the year 2013 but the
writ petition was filed belatedly only in the year
2022. Now she has come up in instant appeal,
and that too without pointing out any indigency.
Further, once appellant, being a married daughter,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 42 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
had eked out a living for the last 15 years, then,
she has neither any vested right nor any valid
claim for appointment on compassionate grounds
.
which is not a regular source of recruitment coupled
with the fact that due to elapse of 15 years, the need
for immediacy stood lost and when, nothing is on
record to show that “indigency” still exists, as per
the mandate of law laid down by the Honble
Supreme Court in the cases of Madhuri Maruti and
in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) In these circumstances,
contention of Learned State Counsel has merit, in
view of the judgements passed in case of National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another
versus Nanak Chand and another, (2004) 12 SCC
487, that compassionate appointment is not a source
of recruitment, in the following terms:-
5. It is to be seen that the appointment
on compassionate ground is not
a source of recruitment but merely
an exception to the requirement regarding
appointments being made on open
invitation of application on merits.
Basic intention is that on the death
of the employee concerned his family
is not deprived of the means of
livelihood. The object is to enable the
family to get over sudden financial
crises.
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 43 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
THERE CANNOT BE ENDLESS COMPASSION:
CLAIM IMPERMISSIBLE AFTER CRISES OVER:
14(iii). As a sequel to above, once the appellant
being a daughter had eked out of living since the
.
death of her mother in 2009 till 2022 then, the
compassionate employment cannot be claimed at any
time in future and that too after a long lapse
of time and the crisis is over, in view of the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eastern
Coalfields rLimited versus Anil Badyakar and
others (2009) 13 SCC 112, in the following terms:-
20. The principles indicated above would
give a clear indication that the
compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be exercisedat any time in future. The
compassionate employment cannot
be claimed and offered after a lapseof time and after the crisis is
over.
NO CLAIM PERMISSIBLE DEHORS SCHEME
POLICY :
14(iv). Third contention of Learned State Counsel
is that the appellant-writ petitioner has no right for
compassionate appointment, dehors the Rules/Policy
dated 18.01.1990.
The above contention of Learned State
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
- 44 - ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
Counsel has merit, in view of the fact that Clause
8 of the 1990 Policy, Annexure P-1, mandates an
dependent of a deceased Government servant to apply
.
for compassionate appointment within three years
of the death of the Government servant but the
appellant-writ petitioner has failed to submit the
necessary application within three years of death
of Government servant, therefore, Clause 8 certainly
stands in the way of appellant-writ petitioner by
treating her to be ineligible for further consideration.
Moreover, the claim for compassionate appointment
is to be tested in the background of the applicable
Rules/Scheme /Policy. No person has a right to seek
appointment on compassionate grounds dehors the
Policy /Scheme, as is being sought for by appellant-
writ petitioner in the instant case. Claim dehors
the Rules/Scheme cannot be granted, in terms of
the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel
Authority of India Limited versus Madhusudan
Das and others (2008) 15 SCC 560, in the following
terms:-
“15. This Court in a large number of
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 45 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
decisions has held that the appointment
on compassionate ground cannot
be claimed as a matter of right.
It must be provided for in the rules.
The criteria laid down therefor, viz.,
that the death of the sole bread.
earner of the family, must be
established. It is meant to provide
for a minimum relief. When such
contentions are raised, the constitutionalphilosophy of equality behind making
such a scheme be taken into
consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India mandate that all
eligible candidates should be consideredfor appointment in the posts which
have fallen vacant. Appointment on
compassionate ground offered to a
dependent of a deceased employee
r is an exception to the said rule.
It is a concession, not a right.”
CLAIM FOR APPOINTMENT REGARDLESS OF RULE
RULES /SCHEME IMPERMISSIBLE:
14(v). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined
that the claim for compassionate appointment should
be in consonance with the Rules/Scheme and such
appointment cannot be made regardless of applicable
Rules/Policy, in State of Rajasthan versus Chandra
Narain Verma, (1994) 2 SCC 752, in the following
terms:
3. We have heard counsel on both sides.
It is one thing to say that a family
member of the deceased is entitled
to appointment on compassionate ground,
but it is altogether a different thing
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 46 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
to say that his appointment should
be made regardless of the rules.
Since he had crossed the maximum
age prescribed for the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police, the authorities were
fully justified in offering him the post
.
of Lower Division Clerk, which he should
have accepted. We fail to see how the
High Court could in the face of
the rules direct the authorities to
make his appointment as Sub-Inspector
of Police. We, therefore, cannot allow the
orders to stand. We set-aside the order
of the learned Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench and direct that
the respondent may join as Lower
Division Clerk, if he so desires, within
four weeks from today. Any appointment
made on pain of contempt proceedings
r pursuant to the impugned judgement
may be cancelled….”
COURTS CANNOT REWRITE OR DILUTE TERMS OF
POLICY BY ACTING DEHORS NORMS:
14(vi). The provision of Clause 8 of 1990 Policy,
which was reiterated on 24.02.2016 provides time
limit of 3 years for applying for the job, from the
date of death of the deceased employee. After the
death of her mother on 20.06.2009, the appellant
failed to apply for job within the mandatory period
of three years. Failure to adhere to this norm,
due to her inactions, lethargy and negligence had
resulting in rejection of her claim by treating it
to be time-barred. Accepting the prayer of appellant-
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 47 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
writ petitioner for re-consideration cannot be acceded
to, for the reason, that the appellant has no vested
right for compassionate employment and such claim
.
cannot be permitted dehors the Scheme-Policy. The
claimed prayer shall result in re-writing the policy-
scheme is impermissible.
The Hon’ble Supreme Cout has deprecated
that Courts cannot rewrite the terms of policy and
compassionate appointment must be granted by the
terms of the State Policy and cannot be in derogation
thereof or dehors thereto in the State of Himachal
Pradesh versus Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285,
in the following terms:
10. In the exercise of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution, itwas not open to the High Court
to rewrite the terms of the Policy.
It is well settled that compassionate
appointment is not a matter of
right, but must be governed by the
terms on which the State lays down
the policy of offering employment
assistance to a member of the family
of a deceased government employee.
11. For the above reasons, we are of the
view that the judgement of the High
Court is unsustainable. The High
Court has virtually rewritten the
terms of the Policy and has issued
a direction to the State to consider
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 48 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
applications which do not fulfil the
terms of the Policy. This is impermissible.
FINALITY ATTACHED TO ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS UNLESS INFRACTION OF SCHEME-
POLICY ESTABLISHED:
.
14(vii). While supporting the Impugned Judgement,
Learned State Counsel contends that case of appellant
-writ petitioner was rejected on four occasions on
10.06.2013, Annexure R-II, on 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8,
on 02.12.2016 Annexure R-VIII and on 26.08.2022,
such rejection orders.
r to
Annexure P-13 and finality has to be attached toAbove contention of Learned State Counsel
carries weight, since, finality has to be attached to
administrative orders/ action unless such an order
is dehors or in derogation of the applicable Rules/
Scheme /Policy notified by the State Authorities.
The appellants own inaction, lethargy or negligence
cannot be the permitted to be a valid basis
for reopening the matter after 15 years now.
Nothing has been placed on record by the appellant
-writ petitioner that State Authorities-Respondents
herein have violated or acted in contravention of
the applicable Rules/Policy/Scheme {1990 Policy} in
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 49 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
instant case. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment,
negating the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner
for compassionate appointment in accordance with
.
applicable Policy {including Clause 8} is upheld.
MANDAMUS CANNOT BE ISSUED WHEN NO
LEGAL RIGHT OF APPELLANT IS VIOLATED:
15. Claim of the appellant-writ petitioner
seeking quashing of the rejection orders dated
28.02.2014, Annexure P-8 and 26.08.2022, Annexure
P-13, is untenable, for the reason, when, the appellant
has not been able to point out infraction of or
violation of any of the applicable norm/scheme/
policy. In absence of any violation or infringement
the appellant has no right to seek issuance of
mandamus. A writ of mandamus can only be claimed
when, a legal right vests in a person and a
corresponding legal obligation on the State, in terms
of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Orissa and Others versus
Prasana Kumar Sahoo (2007) 15 SCC 129, reads
as under:-
“20. It may be that some other persons
similarly situated have been appointed.
But Article 14 as is well known
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 50 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
contains a positive concept. A writ
of mandamus can be issued by the
High Court when there exists a legal
right in the writ petitioner and
corresponding legal obligation in
the State. Only because an illegality.
has been committed, the same cannot
be directed to be perpetuated by a
court of law.”
In terms of the mandate of law in case
of Prasana Kumar Sahoo, once no legal right of
appellant-writ petitioner has been infringed by the
State Authorities whereas the rejection was based
on the applicable norms/policy of 1990, Annexure P-1
therefore, mandamus cannot be issued. Accordingly,
rejection orders passed by the State Authorities in
accordance with the applicable norms/policy, which
were upheld by the Learned Single Judge, does not
suffer from any infirmity.
CONCLUSION:
16. As per Clause 8 of the 1990 Policy, the
appellant-writ petitioner was required to apply for
job, within the time limit of three years from the
date of death of her mother. She failed to do so.
The first application for job, submitted beyond
the time line was validly rejected on 10.6.2013.
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 51 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
The time line of three years in clause 8 of 1990
Policy, which was reiterated on 24.02.2016 was
mandatory and the appellant cannot seek or raise
.
a claim for appointment dehors the policy/scheme,
in view of the factual matrix and mandate of law,
in cases of Prahalad Mani Tripathi, Ramesh
Chandra Agrawal and Bhupendra Nath Hazarika
(supra), the prescription of the time-limit of three
years for
compassionate
r submitting
grounds,
an
as
application
per Clause
for
8
job
of
on
the
Policy of 1990, does not contain any provision for
relaxing {Clause 8 of the said Policy}. In absence
of any provision for relaxing Clause 8 and absence
of guidelines for exercising such power of relaxation,
the time-limit for submitting application for job
could neither be sought to be relaxed or tinkered
with nor diluted. Even, the OM dated 24.02.2016
reiterates that time-limit of 3 years for applying
for job is mandatory. In these circumstances, once
the appellant-writ petitioner had failed to submit
her application for job, within mandatory time-line
of three years from the date of death of her mother
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 52 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
then, the appellant has neither any locus nor
any right to seek relaxation in the prescribed time-
limit.
.
Further, the plea of the appellant that once
a dependent, who was minor at the time of death
of deceased employee was deferred till he attains
the age of majority {18 years} and by enabling him
to apply for job within three years thereafter {21
years} then, plea of appellant for similar relaxation
/extension in submitting application for compassionate
appointment as given to minor(s) untenable. Moreover,
once the appellant was a major on the date of
death of her mother cannot claim equation or parity
with a dependant who was minor on the date of
death of deceased employee and for whom, the
right to apply for job accrued for three years after
attaining majority. While interpreting Clause 8 of
1990 Policy issued by Respondent State, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has mandated in the case of
Shashi Kumar, which stands reiterated in case of
Tinku (supra), that a dependant who was major
at the time of death of deceased can neither claim
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 53 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
equation nor parity vis-a-vis another dependant who
was minor at the time of death, as both classes
of dependants are altogether different and therefore
.
this contention is turned down.
Further, the plea of appellant that she
is entitled for job on compassionate grounds, being
a married daughter as per the mandate of law in
the case of Mamta Devi, Annexure P-15 and the
related judgements in the case of Sapna Devi and
Rani Devi (supra) as referred to above, is also of
no assistance to the appellant-writ petitioner. Merely
because the appellant was married daughter will
not confer an ipso facto right, when, the appellant
had failed to apply for job within the time limit
of three years as required under the policy and
her inaction, lethargy and negligence cannot give
any leverage to the appellant dehors the applicable
policy/scheme. Even, the benefit of the judgement
in the cases of Mamta Devi and related judgements
wherein, a dependant(s) had applied for job within
time-limit of three years of the death of deceased
relative-employee and the claim was rejected, with
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 54 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
the plea that “married daughters were not covered
/were ineligible” for job on compassionate grounds.
In instant case, the claim of appellant
.
was rejected, as time-barred, for not applying for
job, within the time frame of 3 years from the
date of death of her mother, as required under
Clause 8 of the Policy of 1990, which provision
was reiterated as per the OM dated 24.02.2016.
the appellant
r on to
Though the State Authorities rejected the claim of
four occasions but she did
not assail the first rejection order dated 10.06.2013
which attained finality.
Even, the second rejection order dated
28.02.2014, Annexure P-8, was assailed after about
8 years by filing the writ petition only in the year
2022 and Learned Single Judge validly, dismissed
her claim for job, in view of delay and laches.
Material on record reveals that Revised-
New Policy of 2019, Annexure P-11, was applicable
to new and to all pending cases, which had not
been decided earlier. Claim of the appellant which
stood rejected under the extant Policy of 1990, on
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 55 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
four occasions {i.e. for the first time firstly on
10.6.2013, then on 28.02.2014, Annexure P-8 and
thereafter} cannot be permitted to be reopened, so
.
as unsettle the settled matters and/or to reopen
those cases which already stood decided.
Further, the appellant has not been able
to place on record any material to assert/establish
that the rejection orders, passed on four occasions
by State Authorities, were in any manner contrary
or dehors the 1990 Policy/Scheme of Compassionate
Appointment.
Prayer of the appellant-writ petitioner in
seeking a direction to the State Authorities to consider
her claim under the Revised Policy of 2019, shall
certainly disturb the finality attached to the earlier
rejection orders passed under the Earlier-Applicable
Policy of 1990, in accordance with law. Acceding
to the plea of appellant shall amount to rewriting
the terms of Policy is impermissible. The appellant-
writ petitioner has no vested right for compassionate
appointment. Moreover, nothing has been placed
on record to establish “indigency” [as per certificate
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 56 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
issued by competent authority], as on the date of
passing of the first rejection order on 10.06.2013
and again at the time of filing of writ petition
.
in the year 2022 and thereafter in the present
intra court appeal. Compassionate employment is
not a source of recruitment. Appellant cannot claim
endless compassion, dehors scheme-policy and that
too when, 15 years have elapsed since the death
of her mother in 2009, which goes on to infer sense
of immediacy has effaced. In such eventuality, the
claim for appointment on compassionate grounds
is untenable, in the teeth the mandate of Law
in State of Maharashtra versus Madhuri Maruti,
(2022) SCC Online SC 1327, {Paras 4-13 & 14}
and in State of West Bengal versus Debabrata
Tiwari & others, (2025) 5 SCC 712 {Para 32 & 32.1
to 32.5}.
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT PASSED BY LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE UPHELD:
17. In the instant case, the appellant has
failed to establish the infraction of any Rules,
Policy or Scheme, which entitles the appellant for
considering her claim for compassionate employment,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 57 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
despite having chosen, not to apply for the job
within the stipulated period of three years, in terms
of the applicable norms. Even, a claim, on ground
.
of being a married daughter cannot accrue to her
without having applied for job, within the stipulated
period of three years in Clause 8 of Policy of 1990,
reiterated on 24.06.2016, which was mandatory. The
non challenge to two of the earlier rejection orders
also
15
disentitles
years
r now, to
her
from
for
the
any
date
relief.
of
The
death
lapse
of
of
her
mother reveals that the sense of “immediacy” has
been lost. Even, nothing has been placed on record
or established {by way of an Indigency Certificate,
issued by competent authority} before the writ court
and even in this appeal that the appellant is still
in “indigency”. A claim decided thrice, under the
Earlier Policy of 1990 cannot be permitted to be
reopened on coming into force of the Revised-New
Policy of 2019, when, finality has to be attached
to administrative orders, unless the earlier orders
were established to be passed in violation of the
applicable norms or scheme or policy, which factors
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 58 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
are missing in instant case. In these circumstances,
the rejection orders passed in accordance with the
applicable scheme-policy and the Impugned judgment
.
dated 21.11.2023, dismissing the writ petition, does
not suffer from any perversity, infirmity or illegality
and the same is upheld; and the contentions raised
in instant appeal, being devoid of any merit
are negated, in facts of instant matter.
18.
19.
DIRECTIONS:
r to
No other issue was raised/argued.
In view of the above discussion, and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is
dismissed, in the following terms:
(i) Instant LPA i.e. LPA no 335 of 2025
is dismissed;
(ii) The Impugned Judgment dated
21.11.2023, passed by the Learned
Single Judge in CWP No. 7850 of2022, titled Khubwati versus State
of Himachal Pradesh and others
is upheld;
(iii) Rejection order(s) dated 28.02.2014
Annexure P-8, and dated 26.08.2022
Annexure P-13 are upheld;
(iv) Parties to bear respective costs.
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
– 59 – ( 2025:HHC:24049 )
In the aforesaid terms, the instant appeal
and all pending applications, if any shall also stands
disposed of, accordingly.
.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
July 24, 2025
(tm)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2025 21:25:11 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link