RAKESH KUMAR vs STATE OF HP
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:37615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.5412 of 2020
Decided on: 03.09.2026.
________________________________________________________
Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Others ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Neeraj
Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma,
Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, initially filed an
Original Application i.e. OA No.6156 of 2018 before
Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative
Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the
same was transferred to this Court as
CWPOA
No.5412 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s):
“(i). That the respondents may kindly be
directed to consider the case of the
applicant for appointment on
compassionate grounds within time
bound period without raising any
frivolous objections/queries.”
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 2 -
FACTUAL MATRIX:
High Court of H.P.
2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that
his father late Shri Lekh Ram Shashtri, was
appointed as JBT Teacher in Government Primary
School, Kapah (Banjar) District Kullu on adhoc basis
on 22.07.1988 and he served as such on adhoc
during service on 24.07.1995. It is averred that
mother of the petitioner, namely Meera Devi had
applied for compassionate appointment in 1998 as
per Annexure A-2. It is further averred that
petitioner-Rakesh Kumar applied for compassionate
employment in the year 2017 and Block Primary
Elementary Education Officer Banjar forwarded his
case to Deputy Director Elementary Education, Kullu
on 18.07.2017 [Annexure A-3] and even Director
Elementary Education, addressed a communication
to Deputy Director Elementary Education, Kullu on
26.06.2018 [Annexure A-5] directing to forward the
case of the petitioner for consideration along with
documents. In this backdrop, it is averred that State
Authorities have not taken any decision on the claim
for compassionate appointment with the prayer to
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 3 -
consider and given appointment to the petitioner in
High Court of H.P.
terms of the Policy/Scheme.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on
04.01.2019, State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit
dated 16.03.2019 of Director, School Education,
Himachal Pradesh.
3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that father of the
petitioner worked as a JBT Teacher on adhoc basis
in Education Department and he died on 24.07.1995
while working on adhoc basis. It is averred that the
mother of the petitioner-Meera Devi applied for
compassionate appointment during the year 1998
& 1999 but her case was rejected by the Government
on 23.05.1998 and 16.01.1999 respectively.
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit indicates that as per the
Policy/Scheme for compassionate appointment
notified on 18.01.1990, the dependents of adhoc
employees are not covered for employment under the
said scheme.
3(iii). Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioner
applied for job in the year 2017 and his case was
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 4 -
rejected on 01.08.2017, as his brother was already in
High Court of H.P.
Government service and the Policy prohibits
employment to a second member of the family. In
this backdrop, prayer is made for dismissing the
writ petition.
4. Heard Mr. Surender Sharma, Learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vishav
Deep Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General.
ANALYSIS:
5. Taking into account the entirety of facts
and circumstances and the material on record, this
Court is of the considered view, that the claim of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment, upon
death of his father late Shri Lekh Ram Shashtri
on 24.07.1995, is not tenable for the following
reasons:
CLAIM DEHORS CLAUSE 5(C) IMPERMISSIBLE:
5(i). Claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment cannot be acceded to, for the reason
that Reply-Affidavit specifically indicates that since
another dependent of the deceased employee is
already in Government service therefore, the
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 5 -
petitioner being the second dependent cannot be
High Court of H.P.
granted compassionate appointment in terms of
Clause 5 (c) of the Policy, which reads as under:-
5(c). In all cases where one or more
members of the family are already in
Government service or in employment
of Autonomous bodies/Boards/
Corporations. etc., of the State/Central
Government, employment assistance,
should not under (any circumstances
be provided to the second or third
member of the family. In cases,
however, where the widow of the
deceased Government servant
represents or claims that her employed
sons/daughters are not supporting her,
the request of employment assistance
should be considered only in respect of
the widow. Even for allowing
compassionate appointment to the
widow in such cases the opinion of the
Department of Personnel and Finance
Department should specifically be
sought and the matter finally decided
by the Council of Ministers.”
5(i-a). An ineligibility or disentitlement carved out
in Clause 5(c) for compassionate appointment to a
dependent, in case second or third member of the
family is already in Government service or service
of PSU’s/Board’s/Corporation’s, stands approved by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 6 -
Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Parkash
High Court of H.P.
Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285, reads as under:-
“9. The High Court has observed that the
State should consider cases for
appointment on compassionate basis by
dealing with the applications submitted
by sons, or as the case may be,
daughters of deceased government
employees, even though, one member of
the family is engaged in the service of
the government or an autonomous board
or corporation. This direction of the
judgment of the High Court virtually
amounts to a mandamus to the State
Government to disregard the terms
which have been stipulated in
paragraph 5(c) of its policy dated 18
January 1990. The policy contains a
limited exception which is available only
to a widow of a deceased employee who
seeks compassionate appointment even
though one of the children of the
deceased employee is gainfully employed
with the State. The basis for this
exception is to deal with cases where the
widow is not being supported financially
by her children.
10. In the exercise of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution, it
was not open to the High Court to re-
write 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
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 7 -
employment assistance to a member
of the family of a deceased
High Court of H.P.
government employee. [Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana, SBI v. Kunti
Tiwary, Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini
Kumar Taneja, SBI v. Somvir Singh,
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of
Maharashtra, Union of India v.
Shashank Goswami, SBI v. Surya Narain
Tripathi and Canara Bank v.
M. Mahesh Kumar.
11. For the above reasons, we are of the view
that the judgment of the High Court is
unsustainable. The High Court has
virtually re-written the terms of the
policy and has issued a direction to
the State to consider applications
which do not fulfill the terms of the
policy. This is impermissible.
12. That apart, we find from the record that
the father of the respondent died on
04.01.1997. Though the respondent
applied on attaining majority, as
permissible under the policy, the
application was rejected on 25 April
2008. The Writ Petition was filed
nearly two years and six months
thereafter. Apart from stating that the
elder brother of the respondent who was
engaged in government service was living
separately, there were no factual
averments in support of the plea. In any
event, as we have already held, the High
Court was not justified in issuing a
direction which would breach the
policy framed by the State.”
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 8 -
Considering Clause 5 (c) of the Policy and
High Court of H.P.
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Parkash Chand (supra), the claim of petitioner for
compassionate appointment, dehors Clause 5 (c) of
the Policy dated 18.01.1990, when his brother was
already in Government service is devoid of any merit.
REJECTION ORDER ASSAILED:
6. Petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment by submitting an application to Block
Elementary Education Officer, Banjar, which was
forwarded to higher authorities on 18.07.2017
[Annexure A-3] for consideration. Claim of petitioner
was rejected on 01.08.2017 [as mentioned in
Paragraph 1 of Preliminary Submissions of Reply-
Affidavit]. Once the case stands rejected on
01.08.2017 and the rejection order has not been
assailed by the petitioner in instant proceedings,
therefore, having failed to question the rejection
orders, the petitioner is disentitled for any relief(s).
TIME BARRED CLAIM DISENTITLES
PETITIONER FOR RELIEF:
7. Indisputably, father of the petitioner died
during service, while working as an adhoc JBT on
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 9 -
24.07.1995 and petitioner-Rakesh Kumar applied
High Court of H.P.
for compassionate appointment in the year 2017 and
though his application was forwarded to higher
authorities on 18.07.2017 [Annexure A-3] but the
same led to passing of the rejection orders on
01.08.2017. Petitioner initiated a claim for
considering him for compassionate appointment after
a delay of 22 years from the date of death of his
father and a hopelessly time-barred claim for
compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to, in
view of the mandate by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Manish Dwivedi, Civil
Appeal No.000237 of 2026 [arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.32890/2025, decided on 13.01.2026.
8. Even as per Clause 8 of the Policy dated
18.01.1990, except in case of widow, the outer limit
for filing application for compassionate appointment,
upon death of a deceased employee is three years.
However, in the case of dependents, who were minor
at the time of death of deceased employee, the outer
limit is three years from the date of attaining
majority i.e. from attaining 18 to 21 years of age.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 10 -
Clause 8 of Policy reads as under:
High Court of H.P.
“8) Belated requests for compassionate
appointments: Requests for grant of
employment assistance should be received in
the Deptt. Concerned within three years of the
death of 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/un-married
daughter. No relaxation will be allowed in
entertaining requests beyond the above age
except in the case of sons/un-married
daughter/widow of deceased Govt. servants
belonging to the difficult areas as laid down in
the Transfer Policy.”
8(i). In instant case, the petitioner attained
majority of 18 years in the year 2003 and though
outer limit was up to the year 2006 but the petitioner
applied for job only in the year 2017. Compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Petitioner does not have any vested right for
compassionate appointment. Once the petitioner
attained age of majority of 18 years in the year 2003
and outer-limit for applying for job elapsed in the
year 2007 but the petitioner slept over his rights and
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 11 -
remedy for 10 years, when he woke up from the
High Court of H.P.
slumber in the year 2017.
8(ii). Once substantial period is over and the
family had survived and managed affairs, then, a
delayed or belated application leads to the inference
that need for immediacy for job was lost and given up
by the petitioner coupled with the fact that the
compassionate appointment is not a source of
recruitment nor a source of heritable employment,
therefore, the claim of petitioner, is not tenable, in
view of the principle of law mandated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State
Electricity Board and Another v. Hakim Singh
(1997) 8 SCC 85, State of J&K and Others v.
Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766 and State of
Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Shashi Kumar
(2019) 3 SCC 653. The relevant paragraphs in the
case of Shashi Kumar (supra) read as under:-
“35. Insofar as the individual facts
pertaining to the respondent are
concerned, it has emerged from the
record that the writ petition before the
High Court was instituted on
11.05.2015. The application for
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 12 -
compassionate appointment was
submitted on 08.05.2007. On
High Court of H.P.
15.01.2008 the Additional Secretary had
required that the amount released by
way of pension be included in the
income statement of the family. The
respondent waited thereafter for a
period in excess of seven years to
move a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar
Nagpal, this Court has emphasized that
the basis of a scheme of compassionate
appointment lies in the need of
providing immediate assistance to
the family of the deceased employee.
This sense of immediacy is evidently
lost by the delay on the part of
the dependent in seeking
compassionate appointment.
37. We see no reason or purpose in
now directing the State to reconsider
its decision in the case of
the respondent which would only
result in another round of
fruitless litigation. In our view,
the respondent is debarred
from seeking compassionate
appointment by the delay as well as
by the lapse of time which has taken
place.”
8(ii). The broader principles for compassionate
appointment have been spelt out by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal v.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 13 -
Debabrata Tiwari and Others (2025) 5 SCC 712,
High Court of H.P.
held as under:-
“32. On consideration of the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the following
principles emerge:
32.1 That a provision for compassionate
appointment makes a departure from the
general provisions providing for
appointment to a post by following a
particular procedure of recruitment.
Since such a provision enables
appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the
nature of an exception to the general
provisions and must be resorted to only
in order to achieve the stated objectives,
i.e., to enable the family of the deceased
to get over the sudden financial crisis.
32.2 Appointment on compassionate grounds
is not a source of recruitment. The reason
for making such a benevolent scheme by
the State or the public sector undertaking
is to see that the dependents of the
deceased are not deprived of the means of
livelihood. It only enables the family of
the deceased to get over the sudden
financial crisis.
32.3 Compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at
any time in future. Compassionate
employment cannot be claimed or
offered after a lapse of time and after
the crisis is over.
32.4 That compassionate appointment should
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 14 -
be provided immediately to redeem the
family in distress. It is improper to keep
High Court of H.P.
such a case pending for years.
32.5 In determining as to whether the family is
in financial crisis, all relevant aspects
must be borne in mind including the
income of the family, its liabilities, the
terminal benefits if any, received by
the family, the age, dependency and
marital status of its members, together
with the income from any other
source.
32.6 The object underlying a provision for
grant of compassionate employment is to
enable the family of the deceased
employee to tide over the sudden crisis
due to the death of the bread-earner
which has left the family in penury and
without any means of livelihood. Out of
pure humanitarian consideration and
having regard to the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be in a position to make
both ends meet, a provision is made for
giving gainful appointment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such appointment. Having
regard to such an object, it would be of
no avail to grant compassionate
appointment to the dependants of the
deceased employee, after the crisis
which arose on account of death of a
bread-winner, has been overcome.
Thus, there is also a compelling need to
act with a sense of immediacy in matters
concerning compassionate appointment
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 15 -
because on failure to do so, the object of
the scheme of compassionate would be
High Court of H.P.
frustrated. Where a long lapse of time
has occurred since the date of death of
the deceased employee, the sense of
immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and
thus lose its significance and this would
be a relevant circumstance which must
weigh with the authorities in determining
as to whether a case for the grant of
compassionate appointment has been
made out for consideration.
35. Considering the second question referred
to above, in the first instance, regarding
whether applications for
compassionate appointment could be
considered after a delay of several
years, we are of the view that, in a case
where, for reasons of prolonged delay,
either on the part of the applicant in
claiming compassionate appointment or
deciding such claim,
the authorities in
the sense of immediacy is diluted and
lost. Further, the financial circumstances
of the family of the deceased, may have
changed, for the better, since the time of
the death of the government employee. In
such circumstances, Courts or other
relevant authorities are to be guided by
the fact that for such prolonged period
of delay, the family of the deceased
was able to sustain themselves, most
probably by availing gainful
employment from some other source.
Granting compassionate appointment
in
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 16 -
such a case, as noted by this Court in
Hakim Singh would amount to treating
High Court of H.P.
a claim for compassionate appointment
as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of
succession which is contrary to the
Constitution. Since compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and the
same is relative to the financial condition
and hardship faced by the dependents of
the deceased government employee as a
consequence of his death, a claim for
compassionate appointment may not be
entertained after lapse of a considerable
period of time since the death of the
government employee .
41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the
present case, we hold that the
Respondents-Writ Petitioners, upon
submitting their applications in the
year 2006-2005 did nothing further to
pursue the matter, till the year 2015
i.e., for a period of ten years.
Notwithstanding the tardy approach of
the authorities of the Appellant-State in
dealing with their applications, the
Respondent-Writ Petitioners delayed
approaching the High Court seeking a
writ in the nature of a mandamus against
the authorities of the State. In fact, such
a prolonged delay in approaching the
High Court, may even be regarded as a
waiver of a remedy, as discernible by
the conduct of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners. Such a delay would
disentitle the Respondents-Writ
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 17 -
Petitioners to the discretionary relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
High Court of H.P.
Further, the order of the High Court
th
dated 17 March, 2015, whereby the writ
petition filed by some of the Respondents
herein was disposed of with a direction to
the Director of Local Bodies, Government
of West Bengal to take a decision as to
the appointment of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners, cannot be considered to have
the effect of revival of the cause of action.
44. As noted in the said case, the operation
of a policy/scheme for compassionate
appointment is founded on considerations
of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is
called for not only in the manner in
which the applications are processed
by the concerned authorities but also
in the conduct of the applicant in
pursuing his case, before the
authorities and if needed before the
Courts.
45. In the present case, the applications for
compassionate appointment were made
by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in
the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the
first concrete step taken by the Chairman
of the Burdwan Municipality was in the
year 2013, when the said authority
forwarded a list of candidates to be
approved by the Director of Local Bodies,
Burdwan Municipality. The Respondent-
writ petitioners knocked on the doors
of the High Court of Calcutta only in
the year 2015, i.e., after a lapse of
nearly ten years from the date of
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 18 -
making the application for
compassionate appointment. The
High Court of H.P.
Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not
prudent enough to approach the Courts
sooner, claiming that no concrete step
had been taken by the Appellant-State in
furtherance of the application by seeking
a Writ in the nature of Mandamus.
46. The sense of immediacy in
the matter of compassionate
appointment has been lost in the
present case. This is attributable to
the authorities of the Appellant-State as
well as the Respondents-Writ Petitioners.
Now, entertaining a claim which was
made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023,
would be of no avail, because admittedly,
the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have
been able to eke out a living even though
they did not successfully get appointed
to the services of the Municipality
on compassionate grounds. Hence, we
think that this is therefore not fit cases to
direct that the claim of the Respondents-
Writ Petitioners for appointments on
compassionate grounds, be considered or
entertained.
48. The question as to whether a direction
issued several years after an
application for compassionate
appointment, to consider and decide
such application, is in consonance with
the object of a policy/scheme for
compassionate appointment, has been
answered in the negative. However, we
shall also examine whether these appeals
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 19 -
must succeed on a second count, i.e.,
whether there exists any scheme in the
High Court of H.P.
State of West Bengal, governing
compassionate appointment vis-à-vis
municipal employees dying in harness.
60. In fine, the present appeals succeed on
two counts: first, there was
no policy existing to govern
compassionate appointment to posts
under local authorities in the State
of West Bengal and hence, in
the absence of such a policy,
compassionate appointment cannot
be granted; second, assuming that there
was such a policy, it would be of no
redeeming purpose to direct
that the applications for appointment
on compassionate grounds be
considered and decided several years
after they were filed.”
Considering the matter from all aspects,
claim for compassionate appointment was validly
disallowed, as claim for compassionate appointment
upon death of his father in 1995 was raised belatedly
after about 22 years in the year 2017 leading to
irrebuttable inference that since the family had
survived and managed affairs for 22 years then, in
these circumstances, the need for immediacy for job
no longer existed and the claim made to secure
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 20 -
heritable employment is impermissible and same
High Court of H.P.
cannot be granted dehors the object of
compassionate appointment.
CONCLUSION:
9. Claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment cannot be acceded to for one more
reason. Policy for compassionate appointment does
not mandates for eligibility on adhoc deceased
employees. Since a member of the family is already
in Government service then, the petitioner being
the second member of family cannot be granted
compassionate appointment dehors Clause 5 (c) of
the Policy and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Parkash Chand and Manish
Dwivedi (supra) . Even as per Clause 8 of the Policy
dated 18.01.1990, outer limit for filing application for
compassionate appointment in case of death of a
deceased employee is three years but in case of
minor dependents the outer limit is stretchable from
18 to 21 years, which in instant case was attained by
the petitioner in the year 2003 also, but application
submitted for appointment in the year 2017, which
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 21 -
stood rejected in the year 2017 [at Page of Paper
High Court of H.P.
Book] filing of the petition thereafter establishes
that the claim was hopelessly time barred and the
prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be
acceded to, dehors the time line and ineligibility of
the petitioner under the applicable Scheme/Policy, as
referred to above.
10. No other point has been argued/raised.
DIRECTIONS:
11. In view of the above discussion and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition,
is dismissed in following terms:
(i). Instant petition CWPOA No.5412 of
2020, titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of
H.P. & Others, is dismissed;
(ii). Claim of petitioner for compassionate
appointment cannot be granted
dehors the Scheme/Policy as second
member of family was already in
Government service and petitioner
had raised the claim hopelessly
belatedly after 22 years much beyond
the limit of three years even after
attaining majority;
(iii). Costs made easy to respective parties.
In aforesaid terms, the present petition and
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37615
- 22 -
all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
High Court of H.P.
stand dismissed.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 03, 2026
[Shivender]
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 18:50:32 :::CIS