Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
LIYAKAT ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CWP No.11216 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nishant Khidtta
For the Respondents: Rajpal Thakur
The determination of 'indigent circumstances' for compassionate appointment must be realistic and compassionate; a meager annual income for a dependent family cannot be dismissed as sufficient simply by comparing it to daily wages or ignoring the family's actual needs.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Indigent Circumstances - Determination of financial hardship - A meager annual income of Rs. 28,000/- in the year 2003 for a family consisting of a widow and two sons constitutes indigent circumstances; comparing such income to the wages of a daily wager is myopic and unsustainable. (Para 11, 12)
(B) Administrative Discretion - Compassionate Policy - Exercise of power - The authority deciding compassionate appointment must act with actual compassion and a realistic understanding of poverty rather than adopting a narrow or wishful interpretation of financial hardship. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether an annual family income of Rs. 28,000/- in the year 2003 precludes a candidate from being considered as living in "indigent circumstances" for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
Whether approved for reporting?
Yes1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and grant the appointment on compassionate basis after taking into consideration the indigency of the family of the deceased at the time of death/ application as required under law.”
Facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his case for appointment on compassionate basis. Late father of the petitioner died in harness on 17.04.2003 while serving as a "Taru" in the Forest Department of the State. After the death of his father, the petitioner being the eldest son, applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 01.12.2003. The petitioner was called for interview against the post of Chowkidar and also found fit for the said post. Yet, despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria etc., as he was not offered any appointment on compassionate basis and his case was rejected, he approached erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A. No. 5777 of 2017. After abolition of the learned Tribunal the matter was transferred to this Court and re- registered as CWPOA No.3197 of 2020. The petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.04.2022 (Annexure P-9) by setting aside the rejection/ consideration order dated 20.09.2017 and directing the respondents to take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of the Policy in vogue at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. In compliance thereto, vide Annexure P-10, the request of the petitioner for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds was again rejected on the ground that income of the family of the deceased from all sources was assessed at Rs.28,000/- per annum, and therefore, it could not be said that at the time of the death of the deceased (Shri Gulab Deen, father of the petitioner), the family was facing such a level of poverty that there was real hardship. The emoluments paid to the family were also taken into consideration while arriving at this decision.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8155 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-12). In terms of this judgment, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition by holding as under:-
“10. Leaving everything aside, even as of today financial emoluments received by the family of the deceased employee after his death cannot be taken into consideration with computing the annual income of the applicant, rather only recurring benefits are required to be taken into consideration.
11. In view of detailed discussion made herein above, this Court is of the view that since respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of policy of year 1990, as has been observed in the earlier part of the judgment, impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P10), being contrary to the provision of policy, is not sustainable and as such, same is quashed and set aside with the direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of policy in vogue at the time of death of the father of petitioner as well as observations/ findings returned by this Court in the instant judgment. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that the needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detail
