Point of Law: Appointment on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet.

JUDGMENT :

[Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.]

1. Petitioner was employed on compassionate basis as daily wage Beldar on 7.3.2006. He was regularized as such on 6.9.2013. On 7.8.2015, respondent No.2 in purported compliance to an order passed by the Administrative Tribunal ordered for retrospective compassionate appointment of petitioner as Clerk (daily wage) w.e.f. 7.3.2006 and on regular basis w.e.f. 7.9.2013. Petitioner started working as Clerk. The order dated 7.8.2015 was withdrawn by the respondents on 8.6.2016. The operation of order dated 8.6.2016 was stayed in this case on 1.7.2016. Petitioner who continues to serve as clerk has assailed order dated 8.6.2016 and has further prayed to allow him to continue to serve as clerk.

2. The facts are not in dispute:-

2(i) Petitioner’s father was appointed as Pipe Fitter Grade-I with the respondent-department on 20.12.1990. He died in harness on 16.07.2000. The petitioner became a matriculate in the year 2003. He obtained 10+2 qualification in the year 2005.

2(ii) After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the post of clerk on 21.07.2004 (Annexure A-1). His case was recommended by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 vide office letter dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure A-2).

2(iii) On 6.3.2006 (Annexure R-I), petitioner requested respondent No.3 to appoint him on compassionate basis as Beldar on daily-wage basis. Petitioner’s request was accepted and he was offered compassionate employment as daily-wage Beldar vide order dated 7.3.2006 (Annexure R-II). The petitioner accepted the post and joined as such. He was regularized as Beldar on 06.9.2012 (Annexure R-III).

2(iv) Petitioner made a representation to the respondent-department on 18.9.2012 requesting to appoint him to the post of clerk. The application was made on the ground that he had applied for employment on compassionate basis as per the Policy prevailing in the year 2004. The petitioner was eligible for the post of clerk as per Policy prevailing at the relevant time. But instead of appointing him to the post of clerk w.e.f. 7.3.2006, the respondent-department had offered him the post of Beldar. Respondent No.3 considered petitioner’s application and on 20.09.2012 (Annexure P-5), recommended reviewing petitioner’s case to respondent No.2 for the post of clerk retrospectively. Recommendation made by respondent No.3 did not find favour with the Chief Engineer (SZ) IPH Department, who vide office letter dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure A-6) rejected the case for the reason that “post once accepted by the petitioner on compassionate ground cannot not be changed in view of covering instruction of the Department of Personnel Office Memorandum No.Per(AP-II)f(4)/89dated 18.01.1990 Para-11”.

2(v) The respondent’s decision dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure A-6) was assailed by the petitioner in CWP No. 2626/2014 (Mahi Pal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors). It was submitted by the petitioner in the said petition that his case was covered by a judgment dated 22.11.2012 rendered in CWP No. 9945/2012 (Naresh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors). It was also brought to the notice of the Court that Special Leave Petition assailing the decision in Naresh Kumar’s case supra had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.12.2013 (Annexure A-10). Accordingly, petitioner’s CWP No.2626/2014 was decided on 11.09.2014 (Annexure A-8) with the following directions:-

“5. As such, leaving all other questions of law open, we dispose of the present petition with the following directions:-

(i) The respondents shall consider and decide the petitioner’s case in the light of judgment rendered in Naresh Kumar (supra);

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to place additional material before the appropriate authority;

(iii) The question of petitioner’s entitlement, in accordance with law, shall be considered by the authorities;

(iv) The decision shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of three months, from the date of production of certifi