NAVEEN KUMAR vs THE BBMB AND OTHERS

2026:HHC:30867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.15061 of 2025
Reserved on 08.07.2026
Decided on: 27.07.2026
Uploaded on: 27.07.2026
Naveen Kumar … Petitioner
Versus
Bhakara Beas Management Board and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner: Mr.P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Sood, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia ,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“( i) To issue appropriate writ or order to quash and set
aside the office order dated 24.6.2025, Annexure P-16,
the same being wrong, illegal and arbitrary, and further
directions may please also be issued thereby directing the
respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on
compassionate grounds.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction
thereby directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner
on compassionate ground and to allow him/grant him all
consequential benefits thereof.
(iii) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant
record pertaining to the present case.
(iv) To pass any writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?


::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:30867
Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
High Court of H.P.
of the case, more particularly in view of the
compassionate appointment given to Shri Vikas Sharma
son of late Shri Roshan Lal, vide office memo Annexure P-
17A by the respondents, by relaxing the rules, and to
treat the case of the applicant alike, in the interest of
justice .”
2. Brief facts necessary, for the adjudication of this petition
are the father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Amar Singh was
engaged as a Beldar on regular basis with respondent No.1 at
Sundernagar. He died in harness on 21.12.2001. According to the
petitioner, at the time of death of his father, he was under the direct
control of respondent No. 2 and was serving at Sundernagar. Late
Shri Amar Singh left behind three legal heirs, i.e. one son and two
daughters. According to the petitioner, his mother had already
predeceased his father. The petitioner was the youngest among
other legal heirs. All the three siblings were minor at the time of the
death of their father. The petitioner was only 13 years old and was
matriculate. His date of birth is 19.03.1989. As per the petitioner, he
applied for employment on compassionate basis vide Annexure P-4,
i.e. application dated 29.08.2016, as earlier he was not aware that
he was having any right to seek employment on compassionate
ground, nor there was any holding-out from the Department
informing him or his sisters about any such right. It is further the
case of the petitioner that in terms of Annexure P-5, his case was
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:30867
duly recommended and he had also appended a No Objection
High Court of H.P.
Certificate of the other legal heirs, i.e. his sisters. However, in terms
of Annexures P-6 and P-7, the case of the petitioner was rejected by
the Authorities on the ground that he was not covered by the
instructions in vogue on the issue. It is further the case of the
petitioner that in these circumstances, he approached this Court by
way of CWP No.73 of 2022, titled Naveen Kumar Versus Bhakara
Beas Management Board and others and the same was decided on
08.07.2024 in terms of Annexure P-12, in the following terms:
“ 11. Be that as it may, in the light of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in terms where of the
case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment
ought to have been considered as per the policy which
was in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner
died, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-6 and
Annexure P-7 are hereby quashed and set aside and
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner as per the policy in vogue as on the date of the
death of his father and offer him appointment, if found
eligible. No order as to cost. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ”
3. Said judgment was assailed by Bhakara Beas
Management Board by way of a Letters Patent Appeal. In terms of
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 23.05.2025, in
LPA No. 368 of 2024, titled Bhakra Beas Management Board and
others Versus Naveen Kumar (Annexure P-14), the Letters Patent
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:30867
Appeal was dismissed as premature on the ground that the case had
High Court of H.P.
not yet been decided on merit in terms of the directions passed by
the Single Judge. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-16, the case of
the petitioner has been rejected by the Authorities and feeling
aggrieved, he has approached this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a
perusal of Annexure P-16 demonstrates that the case of the
petitioner stands rejected on the ground that in terms of the Policy of
1996, the condition for applying compassionate appointment was
within six months as from the date of death, which could have been
liberalized to the extent that a request for compassionate
appointment by eligible dependent member could be made within a
period of two years instead of six years from the date of death. He
submitted that it was also observed in this Office Order that in case
no dependent member of the family of deceased was eligible for
compassionate appointment within the prescribed period of two
years from the date of death on account of being underage, the
request for compassionate appointment in such case could be made
within the prescribed period under the relevant Policy, provided the
family had no means of subsistence. He submitted that the case of
the petitioner has primarily been rejected on the ground that he had
not applied for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of
the Policy dated 18.08.1996 within a reasonable time and he had
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:30867
slept over the matter for 22 years as from the date of the death of his
High Court of H.P.
father. Learned counsel submitted that these findings are per se
perverse. He submitted that the petitioner was hardly 13 years old
when he lost his father. He applied for appointment on
compassionate basis in terms of Annexure P-4 in the year 2016. He
submitted that in light of this fact, the findings returned in the
impugned order that the petitioner slept over the matter for 22 years
are erroneous findings. He also submitted that whereas on one
hand, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that
he had approached the Authorities after considerable delay, the
respondents have granted compassionate appointment to one Vikas
Sharma, son of Shri Roshan Lal, who was similarly situated as the
petitioner and who had approached the respondents after 27 years
as from the date of the death of his father. He submitted that the
petitioner had also requested the Authorities to consider his case in
light of case of Shri Vikas Sharma and as he was being
discriminated vis-a-vis similarly situated person, therefore, the
rejection of his case was liable to be set aside and direction was
liable to be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate basis.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents vehemently argued that there was no infirmity in the
order passed by the Authorities. He submitted that it was evident
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:30867
that the petitioner had slept for 22 years after the death of his father
High Court of H.P.
and he had not approached the Authorities within reasonable time
to seek employment on compassionate basis. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the maximum time within which a person
could have applied for appointment on compassionate basis as per
the Policy in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner died,
was two years. He submitted that even as from the date when the
petitioner had attained the age of majority, he did not apply within
two years. He thus submitted that in these circumstances, as there
was a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled
for any relief as was being prayed for.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have
also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents
appended therewith.
7. It is a matter of record that the father of the petitioner
died in the year 2001, when he was a minor and so were his sisters.
This fact has not been seriously disputed by the respondents.
However, it is incorrect on the part of the respondents to state that
there was a delay of 22 years on the part of the petitioner to have
had approached the Authorities for claiming appointment on
compassionate basis. Delay indeed is there, as the petitioner
admittedly approached the Authorities for compassionate
appointment in the year 2016. But then, fact of the matter is that
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:30867
initially the petitioner was a minor when his father died and
High Court of H.P.
subsequently, as per him, there was no holding-out made to the
family by the Department that successors-in-interest of the deceased
employee were entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. As
the father of the petitioner had died as a Beldar and the petitioner
submitted that at the relevant time he was a minor and just a
matriculate, benefit of doubt has to be given to him as to whether he
was aware of the fact that on attaining the age of majority, he was
entitled to apply for compassionate appointment on account of death
of his father. In such a circumstance, this Court is of the considered
view that initial onus is upon the employer to inform the family of
the deceased that they have a right to seek appointment on
compassionate basis and in the absence of any such holding-out
being made to the petitioner or his other family members by the
respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the acts of
omission of the Department. In case of employee dying in harness,
onus has to be on the Department to inform the family of the
deceased of their right to seek appointment on compassionate basis
and if despite this the successors-in-interest do not approach for
appointment on compassionate basis, then the issue of the party
approaching the Authorities belatedly on this count can be gone
into.
8. Besides this, in Para-14 of reply of the writ petition
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:30867
there is a specific averment made by the petitioner that one Shri
High Court of H.P.
Vikas Sharma, who had applied for appointment on compassionate
basis after 22 years as from the date of death of his father was
offered appointment on compassionate basis. A perusal of Para-14 of
the reply to the writ petition demonstrates that there is no denial to
the averments made in the petition qua Vikas Sharma having been
offered appointment on compassionate basis belatedly. In fact, the
reply given to this Para is evasive to the averments made by the
petitioner that Shri Vikas Sharma had approached the Authorities
after a huge delay of 22 years from the date of death of his father
(Shri Roshan Lal) and delay as from the date he attained majority,
i.e. Shri Vikas Sharma, was of 12 years.
9. Coming to the facts of this case, as the petitioner was 13
years old when his father died in the year 2001, he obviously
attained the age of majority somewhere in the year 2006. Thereafter,
he applied for job in the year 2016, i.e. 15 years after the death of
his father and after about 10 years from the date of attaining the age
of majority. If the Department was compassionate in the case of Shri
Vikas Sharma while accommodating him, the same compassion
should have been shown by the Department to the petitioner also.
10. Accordingly, in light of above discussions, this writ
petition is allowed. Office order dated 24.6.2025 (Annexure P-16) is
quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to offer
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:30867
appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis, taking into
High Court of H.P.
consideration his qualifications as also the post held by his father
when he died. The appointment be offered to the petitioner as from
the date of filing of the earlier writ petition by him.
11. With these observations, this petition stands disposed
of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 27, 2026
(Rishi)

::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 20:07:44 :::CIS