Narinder Singh v. State of H.P. & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

#3. 3(i) reason given by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case seeking employment on compassionate ground has already been held untenable & rejected in Sandeep Kaur Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Following paras from the decision were pressed into service:- “19) As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioner should provide a certificate of Bonafide Resident of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the petitioner has contended that though initially Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura Public Employment (Requirement As To Residence) Rules, 1954 were in force in the State of Himachal Pradesh which required production of such certificates, these Rules were deleted by the State Government after 20.04.1974. 20) It is further contended that insistence on such a certificate would violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and even the main clauses of the policy dt. 07.03.2019 being relied on by the respondent do not require such a Bonafide Himachali Certificate. 21) We agree with both these contentions raised by the petitioner’s Counsel. As per Art.16(2) of the Constitution no citizen can be discriminated on basis of residence. So insisting that petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced. 22) For all these aforesaid reasons, this Writ petition is allowed; the action of the respondents in refusing to give the petitioner compassionate appointment in the 2nd respondent- Corporation vide letter dt. 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) is set aside; 2CWP No. 4304/2023 decided on 26.0.2023 4 ( 2025:HHC:4382 ) the respondents are directed to accept the Character Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Rupnagar, Punjab, though it is not issued by the Executive Magistrate or Tehsildar; the requirement of furnishing a Bonafide Himachali Certificate contained in Office Memorandum dt.

07.03.2019 for purpose of providing employment compassionate grounds is set aside as being violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India; and the respondents no. 2 & 3 are directed to provide such compassionate appointment to the petitioner within four weeks.” Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner’s first application dated 19.02.2013 seeking employment assistance had not been rejected by the respondents. Respondents’ only objection to the case was that the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed on the post of Clerk, he being a matriculate at that time. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner thereafter in the year 2014 had furnished his 10+2 certificate to the respondents. However, the respondents did not take any decision upon petitioner’s application. Petitioner once again applied on 17.09.2020 and thereafter also in response to a general office communication of the respondents dated 06.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) for employment on compassionate grounds against Class-IV post. Respondents have favourably considered the cases of several persons, however, the case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected only on the ground of his being not a bonafide Himachali. 5 ( 2025:HHC:4382 ) 3(ii) Learned counsel for the respondent-HPSEBL highlighted the facts pleaded in the reply and submitted that petitioner’s case had been turned down on 17.05.2013 not only in view of his being unqualified for the post of Clerk applied for by him but also his family income being in excess of the annual ceiling limit prescribed for compassionate employment at the relevant time. Though the petitioner was advised to apply for employment assistance for Class-IV post, but the petitioner never applied for the same. It was only on 17.09.2020 that the petitioner applied for the second time seeking employment on compassionate grounds. By that time, case of the petitioner had already become time barred in terms of three years period laid down under the applicable policy. The petitioner has not even challenged the decision taken by the respondents in its office communication dated 17.05.2013.

#4. 4(i) Consideration It would be appropriate to first take note of a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K.3 wherein after referring to several authoritative pronouncements, the principles relating to compassionate employment have been culled out as under:- “11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized 3Civil Appeal No. 255/2025 decided on 11.02.2025 6 ( 2025:HHC:4382 ) through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain4]. b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi5]. c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India]6. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India7]. e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi8]. f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das9].