Applications for compassionate appointments must be evaluated based on the policy in effect at the time of the employee's death, not subsequent amendments.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

By way instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

“(i) That the impugned office order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure P-7)may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving him regular status, from the date, giving him employment on contract basis, i.e. and w.e.f. 11.02.2014.

(iii) That the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits with interest @ 12% per annum in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of the petitioner, who was serving as Conductor with Respondent Corporation on regular basis, died during the course of employment on 9.4.2006. Since on afore date, petitioner herein was minor, he was unable to apply for appointment in terms of policy for appointment on compassionate grounds formulated by the Corporation at that time. However, after his having attained majority, petitioner applied for employment under the Kith and Kin Policy (in short the “Policy”) in the year 2007. Screening Committee of the corporation having taken note of the instructions contained under the aforesaid Policy, recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against the post of Conductor alongwith others on contract basis. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his services were regularized vide order dated 12.7.2017 as per Policy of regularization framed by the government. Since petitioner had applied for employment under the Policy prior to December 2007 coupled with the fact that at the time of death of his father, there was no policy to provide appointment on compassionate grounds on contract basis, he made representation to the Respondent- Corporation to regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment, but since such prayer of him was not acceded to, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 6054 of 2020, titled Mohinder Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-Corporation to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Lekh Ram etc. etc., decided on 5.2.2019.

3. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, Respondent-Corporation re-considered case of the petitioner for regularization from the date of initial appointment, but vide office order dated 6.4.2021 (Annexure P-7), rejected the same on the ground that State Government had introduced the contractual policy vide notification dated 12.12.2003, whereafter amendments were made in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, providing therein for appointment on compassionate grounds on contract basis. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order and issue direction to the respondents to grant him regularization from the date of his initial appointment.

4. Reply filed by the respondents if perused in its entirety, nowhere disputes facts as have been recorded herein above, however, an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since at the time of initial induction of the petitioner in service, amendment in Recruitment & Promotion Rules stood made, thereby incorporating provisions of compassionate appointment on contract basis, petitioner herein cannot be permitted to have benefit of policy prevalent at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned counsel for the Respondent- Corporation, vehemently argued that petitioner applied for employment under the Policy after attaining age of majority and as such, he was rightly appointe