SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Ishan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 9486 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Parav Sharma, Shekhar Bhadola
For the Respondent: Menka Raj Chauhan

The rejection of a compassionate employment application must be reasoned and comply with prior judicial directions, failing which it violates principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

(A) Employment on Compassionate Grounds - Rejection of application - The petitioner’s father died in harness, and the application for employment was rejected on grounds of not meeting income criteria as per government instructions - The rejection order was found to lack reasoning and failed to differentiate the case from a precedent set in Avinash Chauhan vs. State of H.P. - The court emphasized the need for a reasoned decision and adherence to principles of natural justice. (Paras 2, 4, 5)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The impugned order was deemed mechanical and devoid of reasoning, violating the principles of natural justice and failing to comply with prior tribunal directions. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s father, a clerk, died in 2008, and the application for compassionate employment was submitted by his wife. The application was rejected multiple times, with the latest rejection occurring in 2022, citing previous decisions without adequate reasoning.

Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection order to be unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and directed the respondents to reconsider the application in accordance with law.

Issues: The main issues included whether the rejection order provided sufficient reasoning and whether the case was considered in light of the precedent set in Avinash Chauhan.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection order was not justified as it failed to provide a reasoned basis for the decision and did not comply with the tribunal's directions.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. Respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground, hence this writ petition.

2. Following facts are not in dispute:-

(i) Petitioner’s father-Sh. Sunil Kumar Joshi was serving as regular Clerk with the respondents-Social Justice & Empowerment Department. He died in harness on 23.07.2008. He was survived by his wife, a daughter and a son (present petitioner).

(ii) Sh. Sunil Kumar Joshi’s wife submitted an application for providing employment on compassionate grounds to her son (the present petitioner) in August 2008. The application went back and forth on different tables for compliance with codal formalities and documentation. It was finally rejected by the respondents on 10.08.2015, on the ground that petitioner’s case did not satisfy the laid down income criteria.

(iii) The petitioner preferred Original Application (D) No.26 of 2015 before the State Administrative Tribunal. The OA was disposed of on 19.08.2017 with directions to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the judgment/order passed by this Court in Avinash Chauhan vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 7674 of 2013 decided on 09.12.2013, in case the petitioner was similarly situated, within three months.

(iv) Petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate ground was decided afresh by the respondents on 03.06.2022. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s prayer for employment on compassionate ground.Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition laying challenge to the orders passed by the respondents rejecting his case for employment on compassionate grounds.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

4. Observations:

(i) In the first order passed by respondents on 10.08.2015, the case of the petitioner was rejected in view of observations of the Finance Department that the case did not meet the financial/income criteria fixed by the Government as per Personnel Department’s instructions dated 24.08.2002, 02.09.2002, 21.12.2012, 18.07.2014 and19.07.2014.

(ii) Petitioner had assailed the above rejection order before the learned State Administrative Tribunal in OA (D) No.26 of 2015. Vide its decision dated 19.06.2017, learned Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of decision rendered by this Court in Avinash Chauhan (supra). Respondents in compliance to the aforesaid direction of the learned Tribunal, once again rejected petitioner’s case by passing following order on 03.06.2022:-

“Kindly refer to your Letter No. 1-98/85-Wel-Part.-1 dated, 30.09.2021 on the subject cited above. In this context, it is submitted that the matter of employment on compassionate grounds in favour of Sh Ishan Sharma S/Lt. Sh Sunil Kumar Sharma Village Sanoura, P.O Gaggal, Tehsil & District Kangra was sent to Govt. for consideration. The Govt. has rejected the matter due to the reason that the case was previously decided/rejected as per Rules/Instructions prevalent at that time.

In view of this, the copy of letter along with the copy of advice tendered by the Finance Department are enclosed herewith for information and further necessary action please.”

(iii) The above rejection order passed on 03.06.2022 is bereft of reasons. The only ground mentioned for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that his case had been rejected previously and therefore, it is being rejected once again. This logic given in the impugned rejection order dated 03.06.2022 cannot be sustained.

Learned Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision rendered in Avinash Chauhan (supra). The impugned order does not even disclose as to how petitioner’s case had been considered/differentiated vis-a-vis decision rendered in Avinash Chauhan (supra).

(iv) It may also be noticed that at the time of applying for compassionate appointment, as per the certificate of income issued in favour of the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top