##PAGE1##

( 2025:HHC:46504 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No.931 of 2025

Decided on: 31st December, 2025

State of H.P and others

.......App.ellants

versus

Gurpreet Singh

...Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the appellants: o Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy

Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed

against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in

CWP No.7790 of 2021 titled Gurpreet Singh vs. State of H.P

and others, decided on 13.05.2025, whereby the learned

Single Judge has directed to consider the case of the writ-

petitioner afresh for compassionate appointment in

accordance with law, as per policy in vogue at the relevant

time i.e. death of the employee as such on 09.02.2017.

2. Counsel for the State has argued that the case of

the writ-petitioner had been rejected on 11.08.2021

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:26:44 :::CIS

( 2025:HHC:46504 )

2

(Annexure P-6) on the account of the fact that the family

income was Rs.5,00,000/- on 05.04.2018 and, therefore, he

did not meet the financial income criteria as fixed by the

Government as per instructions dated 07.03.2019.

3. Learned Single Judge has notice d that since the

father of the writ-petitioner was serving as Head Constable in

the Police Department, who died on 09.02.2017 and the

application for compassionate appointment had been made

on 06.10.2017 itself, the reujection on the subsequent date on

04.06.2021 which woas duly communicated on 11.08.2021

would not be jusCtified, keeping in view the law laid down by

the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs.

Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157.

4. Similar issue has been decided by us in LPA

iNo.797 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and

another vs. Sarita Devi, decided on 19.11.2025 which has

been followed in LPA No.827 of 2025 titled State of

Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surjeet Singh, decided

on 3.12.2025, by taking a view that the consistent view is

being followed, which was also supported by the observations

of the Apex Court that the date of death is one date which

remains fixed, whereas, the date of consideration and the

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 07:26:44 :::CIS

( 2025:HHC:46504 )

3

revised policies keep on changing, which can put the family of

the deceased employee at a disadvantage, only on account of

the delay in consideration by the State. The relevant part of

the judgment in Sarita Devi’s case (supra) reads as under:-

14. In spite of that the attitude of t he State to pursue

the litigation continue. The law afs such has also been

relied upon by the State primarily, placing reliance

upon the judgment of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh

Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2020) 7 SCC 617,

wherein it has been held that consideration should be

done as per the policy tin force.

15. However, counsel for the respondent has fallen

back on another three-Judge Bench judgment of the

Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Vs. Amit oShrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496, decided on

29.09.2020, subsequent of the judgment of N.C.

SantChosh case (supra), which was decided on

04.03.2020. The observations in subsequent judgment

as such would go on to show that it is the date of

demise which has to be seen, unless a subsequent

h policy is made applicable retrospectively. The relevant

paragraph reads as under:-

“16. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent

right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a

i right based on certain criteria, especially to provide

H succour to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the

applicable policy as existing on the date of demise,

unless a subsequent policy is made applicable

retrospectively. Insofar as providing succour is

concerned, unfortunately, since the demise of the late

father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and

reall