ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by Nagender Kumar, praying for a direction to the respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter, ‘Board’) to consider his case for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in lieu of the services rendered by his father-Jagdish Chand to the said Board on the post of T-Mate, who died in harness on 6.11.2020. 2. According to the facts of the case, Jagdish Chand, father of the petitioner met with an accident on 13.7.2005, while he alongwith other employees of the Board was replacing rotten electrical poles. When the pole jerked, father of the petitioner fell on the rocky surface and instantaneously became unconscious. He was instantly shifted to hospital at Bilaspur and thereafter referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained hospitalized for a very long time. Even the respondents conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner’s father had received severe head injury and other injuries, while on duty, and he was rendered 100% disabled and was permanently bed-ridden. Father of the petitioner continued to be in service of the respondents till 31.8.2020, and was paid salary but, unfortunately, he died on 6.11.2020. Even the case of father of the petitioner was considered for promotion and he was promoted to the post of Lineman but, unfortunately, Deputy Chief Engineer (Operation) Circle, HPSEBL, Bilaspur on 12.8.2016 (Annexure P-4), later withdrew the order of his promotion, without assigning any reason. Copies of various documents regarding treatment of the petitioner’s father including MRI report of PGI Chandigarh duly signed by the Board of Doctors on 8.4.2015 (Page-25) is placed on record, which indicates that even after ten years of accident, it was opined to be a case of ‘diffuse atrophy of bilateral cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum with prominent ventricular system and extra-axial CSF spaces; and the impression that was gathered was ‘diffuse cerebral atrophy with communicating hydrocephalus’. Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Sub Division-III, HPSEB Bilaspur as Chairman with Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Division No. I, HPSEB Bilaspur and Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Sub Division HPSEB Namhol as members. Copy of the departmental enquiry report (Annexure P-2) is on record. The Committee, after inspecting the site of accident, reported that the statements of the staff at Sub Division Namhol were recorded on 25.8.2005. Committee clearly recorded that they could not record statement of the victim as he was under medical treatment. Copy of the departmental enquiry report (Annexure P-2) is on record. The Committee, after inspecting the site of accident, reported that the statements of the staff at Sub Division Namhol were recorded on 25.8.2005. Committee clearly recorded that they could not record statement of the victim as he was under medical treatment. The committee was fair enough in stating that the victim was not in a position to give his statement as per medical discharge slip annexed with the report. Committee has given finding in the report that after the spot inspection and checking PTW No. 448, dated 13.7.2005 and going through the statements of the staff, they came to the conclusion that the rotten pole was positioned with the support of line conductor and accessories/fitting were provided on the pole but when all the supports i.e. conductor/fittings were removed, the pole tilted and Jagdish Chand, who was holding a ladder with the pole, got a jerk and fell down on rocky land with ladder and got severe head injury. 3. In that situation, the petitioner sometime in 2018, submitted an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds through his mother, Premi Devi. The application was forwarded by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division HPSEBL Bilaspur to the Executive Director (Personnel), HPSEBL, Shimla. After going through the narration of the entire incident, the Senior Executive Engineer, Bilaspur has categorically recorded that Shri Jagdish Chand, father of the petitioner, who was an employee of the Board, was still in a comma, as reported by the Assistant Engineer concerned, vide office letter dated 4.4.2018 to the said office. The application of the petitioner was not processed further but according to the petitioner, he was advised by the Board authorities that until and unless he makes an application seeking voluntary retirement of his father, he could not be given appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The application of the petitioner was not processed further but according to the petitioner, he was advised by the Board authorities that until and unless he makes an application seeking voluntary retirement of his father, he could not be given appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. In between, the Secretary of the Board issued a circular (page-37) addressed to all the Chief Engineers that it has been brought to the notice of his office that the instructions issued vide office letter dated 22.6.2004, are not being implemented in letter and spirit and emphasized that in the event of accident on duty, the officials will be treated on duty instead of leave for the period of their treatment and the medical reimbursement and monthly salary may be released immediately and all possible help may also be rendered by the Executive Engineers concerned in such cases. 5. Compelled, as he was, the petitioner had to submit an application through his mother to the Executive Director (Personnel), HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla on 15.1.2020 (page-41). This application makes an interesting reading. It is stated that the husband of the applicant (Jagdish Chand) met with an accident while working on line on 13.7.2005 and that due to head injury sustained by him, he became unconscious and was referred to PGI Chandigarh. The doctors have opined that it will take long period of time for recovery and that he (Jagdish Chand) is unconscious since the date of non-fatal accident and there is no hope of his regaining consciousness. It was difficult for him to perform his duties in such unconscious position. The application further stated that the son of the said employee Jagdish Chand and applicant-Premi Devi, Nagender Kumar, having his date of birth 24.6.1996, is possessing academic qualification of 10+2 with ITI diploma in Electrician trade and as per present position of the Government Rules, permission to engage him on regular/contract basis as Helper Sub Station/T-mate may kindly be accorded in his favour on compassionate grounds. In the last para of the application, applicant has requested that her husband, Jagdish Chand, ALM, may be permitted to retire on voluntary basis on medical grounds, taking into consideration his medical condition, at the earliest. In the last para of the application, applicant has requested that her husband, Jagdish Chand, ALM, may be permitted to retire on voluntary basis on medical grounds, taking into consideration his medical condition, at the earliest. Application was submitted on 15.1.2020 and the husband of the applicant, Jagdish Chand, who was otherwise due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020 but surprisingly, the respondents acting upon said application, took him as voluntarily retired with effect from 1.9.2020. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto, in which they have stated that during maintenance work, where two wooden poles were already replaced and third one was being replaced on 13.7.2005, Shri Babu Ram and Shri Mast Ram, ALM were dismantling the conductor, victim, Jagdish Chand fell down on rocky land alongwith ladder and met with non-fatal accident, during the duty hours. Investigation report of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Kasumpti concluded that the probable cause of accident was the negligence on the part of the victim himself. Subsequently, the representation of the petitioner for providing employment on compassionate grounds to him and request of Jagdish Chand, ALM, for retirement on medical grounds was received in the office of the respondents on 30.5.2020. Both these applications were disposed of on 14.7.2020 (Annexure R-3) by the Deputy Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Shimla. While the application of Jagdish Chand for retirement on medical grounds was processed, the petitioner was informed vide order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-14) that his case was examined and it was informed that till retirement of Shri Jagdish Chand, his application for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered. 7. Surprisingly, the respondents have placed on record application purported to have been submitted by father of the petitioner, Jagdish Chand sometime in 2018. This application is having lot of interpolations. The original application on behalf of the petitioner’s father was typed out, in which it was stated that while working on line on 13.7.2005, he met with an accident. Due to head injury, he became unconscious and was referred to PGI Chandigarh. After treatment the doctor advised that the patient will take long period for recovery. Thereafter, it is stated that he was unconscious from the date of non-fatal accident to date. Surprisingly, the words, “he was unconscious” in the sentence were replaced by hand with “I am unconscious”. Due to head injury, he became unconscious and was referred to PGI Chandigarh. After treatment the doctor advised that the patient will take long period for recovery. Thereafter, it is stated that he was unconscious from the date of non-fatal accident to date. Surprisingly, the words, “he was unconscious” in the sentence were replaced by hand with “I am unconscious”. The application, which originally stated that, “it is very difficult for him to join/perform his duties in such unconscious position” has been changed/corrected by hand to read as, “it is very difficult for me to join/perform the duties in such unconscious position” and thereafter it is added in hand that, “& when I have been declared 100% mental disabled”. The application contains thumb impression as obviously, an unconscious person could not have signed the application. 8. The respondents, in their reply have stated that Policy dated 20.5.2017 (Annexure R-4), which according to the respondents, would be applicable to this case, because the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2018 and thereafter again in the year 2020, provided that the employees, who meet with an accident and seek voluntary retirement within three years of accident, then only, wards of such employees shall be provided appointment on compassionate grounds. In the present case, since the voluntary retirement was sought in the year 2020 in relation of accident, which took place in 2005, therefore, case of the petitioner could not have been considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. We are surprised to take note of the stand taken by the respondent Board. Moreover, we are also surprised to find that how a person who was throughout unconscious could apply for voluntary retirement. The application dated 15.1.2020 submitted by the mother of the petitioner makes reference to earlier application submitted in February, 2018, although, unfortunately, that application is not on record. Later application dated 15.1.2020 rightly has been signed by the mother of the petitioner i.e. wife of Shri Jagdish Chand. In this application, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner’s father was still unconscious. Later application dated 15.1.2020 rightly has been signed by the mother of the petitioner i.e. wife of Shri Jagdish Chand. In this application, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner’s father was still unconscious. In the application, she requested for appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner as Helper Sub-station/T-Mate, on the basis of his qualification of 10+2 and ITI diploma in electrician trade held by him and while stating that the respondents would not consider the case of the petitioner till the time, her husband is retired, she was compelled to request that her husband may be retired on voluntary basis on medical grounds taking into consideration the critical unconscious position of her husband. However, application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-14). Another application of which we have made reference to above and which is having a lot of interpolations/corrections also indicates that the father of the petitioner, Jagdish Chand, was still in an unconscious condition. It is mentioned in the originally typed out application that he was unconscious and that it was difficult for him to join/perform his duties in such unconscious position and that the permission may be accorded for engaging the petitioner as Helper or any other Class IV post, on compassionate grounds and that he (Jagdish Chand) may be retired on voluntary basis. 10. We, at this stage, may take note of the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which reads as under : “20. (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment; Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability. (4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service. Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. (4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service. Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.” 11. Section 20 supra, inter alia, provides in sub-Section (3) that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability. Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 provides that no Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee, who acquires a disability during his or her service and that, if an, employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 20 provides that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against the post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. 12. In view of above, we find that the order of the respondents withdrawing promotion of father of the petitioner, even while he was in a state of unconsciousness or was rendered 100% disabled, while on duty, is wholly illegal. The petitioner is right in contending in para-4 of the writ petition that the attitude of the respondents shows that how an honest, poor, sincere and dedicated employee could have been harassed, when already he was facing the music at the hands of the God. Respondents, in para-4 of their reply have merely denied the averments of such para for want of knowledge and specifically stated that as of now, father of the petitioner has expired on 6.11.2020 but have not given any justification, in response to assertions made by the petitioner, why the promotion orders of the petitioner’s father were withdrawn. 13. Respondents, in para-4 of their reply have merely denied the averments of such para for want of knowledge and specifically stated that as of now, father of the petitioner has expired on 6.11.2020 but have not given any justification, in response to assertions made by the petitioner, why the promotion orders of the petitioner’s father were withdrawn. 13. In view of above, action of the respondents in withdrawing the promotion orders of the petitioner’s father is wholly illegal and therefore unsustainable in law. 14. Coming now to the reasons given for rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, the same are faulty on two counts; firstly father of the petitioner being unconscious could not have submitted an application within three years of date of accident and secondly, the Policy dated 20.5.2017, could not have been retrospectively applied to the incident, which took place in the year 2005. In any case, father of the petitioner was due to retire on 31.10.2020, his date of birth being 1.10.1962 as per record, when he would have attained the age of 58 years, nonetheless, he died on 6.11.2020, six days after the deemed date of superannuation. Taking undue advantage of the crises in the family, respondents procured application of late father of the petitioner dated 9.5.2020, seeking therein voluntary retirement. On the application, as detailed hereinabove, thumb impression of the petitioner’s father was obtained, though he was in comma. Subsequently, department made mother of the petitioner to write application seeking therein voluntary retirement of his husband on account of his illness. However, mother of the petitioner, while making such request, requested for compassionate appointment of his son in place of his father. These applications were made by the petitioner and his mother, in the desperate hope that the petitioner shall be at last granted appointment on compassionate grounds and he would ultimately be able to support the family, as the sole bread-earner of the family was in a vegetative state of life. But alas, that would not happen. 15. The manner in which the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been dealt with by the respondents leaves men to be desired impression that they have no compassion for an employee, who was rendered 100% disabled, while discharging duties on 13.7.2005. 16. But alas, that would not happen. 15. The manner in which the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been dealt with by the respondents leaves men to be desired impression that they have no compassion for an employee, who was rendered 100% disabled, while discharging duties on 13.7.2005. 16. In view of above discussion, present petition deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed with the following directions : (i) Order of the respondents dated 12.8.2016, Annexure P-4, withdrawing the promotion of late Jagdish Chand as Lineman is declared illegal and quashed and set aside with the direction that he shall be deemed to have continued on such post till attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020. (ii) Order dated 31.8.2020 (Annexure P-10) issued by Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Bilaspur, retiring the father of the petitioner, late Jagdish Chand on medical grounds with effect from 1.9.2020, is also declared illegal and set aside. (iii) Order of the respondents dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-14), rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds is declared illegal and quashed and set aside. (iv) Respondents are directed to re-compute the retiral/terminal benefits of the deceased Jagdish Chand by deeming him to have retired from the post of Lineman on 31.10.2020 and make payment of the same including revised family pension to his widow, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. (v) Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the qualifications of the petitioner, by considering the father of the petitioner to have continued in service till 31.10.2020 and submit compliance of the order within two months of the production of a copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of. List on 30.6.2022, for compliance.