The rejection of a compassionate appointment application based on time-bar is invalid if the applicant was a minor at the time of the relevant event, allowing re-evaluation under applicable policies.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“ (i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued against the respondents and impugned letter/communication dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure P-5), issued by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued against the respondent department and respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as per his qualification and eligibility, on compassionate grounds, as per the policy prevailed at the time of death of father of the petitioner, i.e. 22.12.2008 and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is waiting for the same since 2014. ”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the father of the petitioner who was serving with the respondent-department as a beldar on regular basis, died in harness on 22.12.2008. As per the petitioner, he was a minor at the time of death of his father. After he attained the age of majority he applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 17.12.2014. His request has been rejected by the respondent-department vide Annexure P-5, i.e. communication dated 24.02.2022, which reads as under:-

“Reference:- Your office letter No. PWI/CB/Employment Case/ 2021/-7669-71 dated 20.1.2022.

The employment assistance case on compassionate grounds in respect of Ravinder Kumar S/O late. Sh. Amin Chand beldar as received vide your above referred letter is returned herewith with the Remarks that the Sh. Amin Chand beldar had expired on 22.12.2008 and his son Sh. Ravinder Kumar has applied for employment on compassionate ground on 17.12.2014 after a lapse of more than six years after the death of deceased which show that the case is time barred.

So keeping in view above facts applicant is not eligible as per OFFICE MEMORANDUM issued by the Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Shimla vide his letter No. Fin-F-(A)-(16)-1/2013 dated7.3.2019 (This office Memorandum/ instructions may also be seen on www.himachal.nic.in/finance under the link Expenditure).

You are therefore requested to examine the case and henceforth all such type of similar cases strictly in future. ”

3. According to the petitioner, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that the Authorities erred in not appreciating that as the petitioner was minor at the time when his father died, he could not have applied for the post and his eligibility in fact was to be seen as from the date he attained majority. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by relying upon Office Memorandum issued by the Secretary (Finance), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 07.03.2019 by misreading the same. Accordingly, learned counsel has prayed that the petition be allowed, impugned order be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis.

4. Learned Law Officer on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner attained the age of manority on 21.06.2011 and thereafter he had to apply within a period of three years, i.e. before he attained the age of 21 years for compassionate appointment, but he did not do so and therefore, his claim has been rightly rejected in terms of the law declared by this Court in CWP No.500 of 2021, titled as Sant Ram & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 31.03.2021.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully