JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP(M) No.83 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal, which in our considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 2. Appeal be registered. LPA No. 34 of 2024 3. Instant Letters Patent Appeal lays challenge to the judgment dated 28.7.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWPOA No. 6527 of 2019, titled Shanti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby a direction came to be issued to the appellants to offer appointment to the petitioner (respondent herein) against Class-III post on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 6.8.2015, i.e. the date on which her representation was rejected by the competent authority with all consequential benefits. 4. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of the case at hand are that father of the respondent, who was serving with the appellants-department as a Fitter died in harness on 30.6.2003, leaving behind his wife and two daughters including the respondent. Though respondent was eligible and entitled for appointment against class-III post as her father was holding class-III post when he died, but she was offered appointment against the post of daily wage beldar w.e.f. 13.12.2005. On account of utter penury, respondent had no option but to accept the compassionate appointment against class-IV beldar. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid offer of appointment on compassionate grounds against class-IV post, respondent filed OA before the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal, which on account of abolition of the Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWP(T) No. 15372 of 2008. Since during pendency of the aforesaid petition, it came to the notice of the respondent that appellant-department offered appointment to a similarly situate person against class-III post on compassionate grounds, she sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file appropriate representation to the appellant-department. 6. Pursuant to liberty granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent made representation to the appellant-department, praying therein that she be offered appointment against class-III post as she was duly qualified to be appointed against class-III post and one Ms. Neelam Gazta had also been given appointment by the department against class-III post in August, 2010. 6. Pursuant to liberty granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent made representation to the appellant-department, praying therein that she be offered appointment against class-III post as she was duly qualified to be appointed against class-III post and one Ms. Neelam Gazta had also been given appointment by the department against class-III post in August, 2010. However, aforesaid prayer of the respondent was not accepted by the appellant-department and her representation was replied vide communication dated 26.8.2013, stating therein that since she had already accepted the appointment against the post of daily wage beldar on compassionate grounds, therefore, post once accepted cannot be changed as per government instructions. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent was compelled to approach the writ court by way of CWP No. 7803 of 2010, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 31.12.2014, with direction to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent in view of the principles laid down in judgment dated 16.12.2010, titled Sukh Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 7. Though pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the writ court, appellants-department considered representation of the respondent but vide office order dated 8.6.2015, rejected her prayer, as a consequence thereof, she was compelled to knock the door of the court again vide CWPOA No. 6527 of 2010, which is subject matter of the present appeal. 8. In nutshell, grouse of the respondent which came to be highlighted through the writ petition and further canvassed by the learned counsel representing the respondent was that since father of the respondent was class-III employee at the time of his death and at that point of time, respondent was fully qualified to be offered appointment against class-III post on compassionate grounds, appellant department ought not have offered appointment to the respondent against class-IV post. Apart from above, it also came to be argued on behalf of the respondent that in similar facts and circumstances, appellant department had offered appointment to an incumbent against class-III post taking into consideration the indigent condition of family of the said person. Lastly, it came to be argued on behalf of the respondent that joining of the respondent as daily wage beldar on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as an estoppel for offering appointment against class-III post because on account of adverse family circumstances, she was forced to accept class-IV post. 9. Lastly, it came to be argued on behalf of the respondent that joining of the respondent as daily wage beldar on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as an estoppel for offering appointment against class-III post because on account of adverse family circumstances, she was forced to accept class-IV post. 9. To the contrary, appellant department sought to refute the claim of the respondent on the ground that at no point of time, respondent was forced to accept the appointment against the post of daily wage beldar, rather she accepted the aforesaid post and as such, had lost her right to again seek employment subsequently on compassionate grounds against class-III post. Appellant department further argued before the writ court that appointment on the basis of compassionate grounds is an exception and not a norm and as such, respondent cannot dictate terms to the department, for appointment against a particular post on compassionate grounds, however, appellant department was unable to dispute that one Ms. Neelam Gazta, who had initially accepted the appointment against daily wage beldar was subsequently given appointment against class-III post. Taking note of the aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties as well as their submissions referred herein above, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant department to offer appointment to the respondent against class-III post on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 6.8.2015, i.e. the date on which, her representation was rejected by the competent authority, with all consequential benefits but with a rider that monetary benefits shall be notional upto the date of filing of the OA i.e. 22.2.2018, from which date, she was held entitled to the actual benefits. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid direction issued by the learned writ court, appellant department has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid impugned judgment. 11. Precisely, the case of the appellant department as has been set up in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General is that respondent of her own free will accepted the appointment against class-IV post and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the authorities, while rejecting her representation for offering her appointment against class-III post. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General is that respondent of her own free will accepted the appointment against class-IV post and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the authorities, while rejecting her representation for offering her appointment against class-III post. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that at the time of accepting the appointment against class-IV post, protest, if any, was ever raised by the respondent, rather she kept mum for three years after her having accepted the appointment against the Class-IV post and it is only in the year, 2008, she filed a petition, seeking therein direction to the respondent department to offer appointment against a class-III post on the ground that similarly situate person namely Ms. Neelam Gazta was given appointment against class-III post in August, 2010. He argued that above named Ms. Neelam Gazta was offered appointment against class-III post on the direction issued by the writ court, but since no positive direction was ever issued in favour of the respondent, there was no occasion, if any, for the appellant department to offer her appointment against class-III post. Lastly, Mr. Chandel, argued that otherwise also, as per government instructions, post once accepted cannot be changed. 12. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. Admittedly, father of the respondent, who was working as a Fitter died on 30.6.2003,. It is also not in dispute that at the time of making application for appointment on compassionate grounds, respondent was fully eligible and qualified to be offered appointment against class-III post. 13. Admittedly, father of the respondent, who was working as a Fitter died on 30.6.2003,. It is also not in dispute that at the time of making application for appointment on compassionate grounds, respondent was fully eligible and qualified to be offered appointment against class-III post. 13. True it is that pursuant to application made by the respondent, she was offered appointment against the post of daily wage beldar w.e.f. 31.2.2005, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on account of utter penury and adverse family circumstances, respondent had no option but to accept the offer, however, in the year, 2008, respondent after having discovered that she was actually entitled to be offered appointment against Class-III post, approached the competent court of law by way of CWP(T) No. 15372 of 2008, but before the same could be decided, learned writ court having taken note of the fact that in similar facts and circumstances, person namely Ms. Neelam Gazta, who was originally given appointment against the Class-IV post was subsequently offered appointment against Class-III post, permitted the respondent to withdraw the petition with liberty to file representation to the authorities to consider her case in terms of the judgment passed in Sukh Dutt supra. Interestingly, appellant department without there being any application of mind disposed of the representation that too in a slipshod manner thereby rejecting the case of the respondent on the ground that as per government instructions, post once accepted cannot be changed. Besides above, appellant department also set up a ground that at no point of time, she was forced to accept the appointment against the post of daily wage beldar and on account of her having accepted the appointment against class-IV beldar, she has lost her right to seek employment against class-III post. Moreoever, in the order dated 8.6.2015, whereby representation having been filed by the respondent came to be rejected, there is no discussion that in what manner, case of the respondent is different from Sukh Dutt (supra). Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that at no point of time, appellant department was able to dispute that Ms. Neelam Gazta, who was initially given appointment against class-IV post was later on given appointment against class-III post on account of the fact that her father was serving as class-III employee at the time of his death. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that at no point of time, appellant department was able to dispute that Ms. Neelam Gazta, who was initially given appointment against class-IV post was later on given appointment against class-III post on account of the fact that her father was serving as class-III employee at the time of his death. Even today, during arguments, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute or produce any document to show that case of the respondent was different from the case of Ms. Neelam Gazta. Admittedly, Ms. Neelam Gazta, was initially given appointment by the department against class-IV post, but subsequently, pursuant to representation made by her, she was offered appointment against class-III post. It is also not in dispute that at the time of offering appointment to the respondent in the year 2005, respondent was fully qualified and eligible to be offered appointment against class-III post. 14. Though this Court finds some force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that post once accepted cannot be changed, but once aforesaid instructions issued by the government were relaxed in the case of Ms. Neelam Gazta, who was similarly situate to the respondent, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge, thereby issuing direction to the appellants to offer appointment to the respondent against class-III post that too from the date when her representation was rejected with further rider that no actual financial benefits attached to the class- III post shall be given to her till the time of her joining against the post in question. 15. We are persuaded to agree with findings returned by the learned Single Judge that on account of adverse family circumstances, respondent was compelled to accept the appointment against class-IV post, but at same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the present case, aforesaid plea set up by the appellant department might have lost its relevance and effectiveness for the reason that despite there being aforesaid instructions issued by the government, which are otherwise sought to be relied in the case of the respondent, were not adhered to in the case of Ms. Neelam Gazta, who was initially offered the appointment against class-IV post and subsequently, on her representation, her appointment was changed from class-IV post to class-III. On account of acceptance of representation made by Ms. Neelam Gazta, who was initially offered the appointment against class-IV post and subsequently, on her representation, her appointment was changed from class-IV post to class-III. On account of acceptance of representation made by Ms. Neelam Gazta, appellants are now estopped from raising the ground that offer once accepted cannot be changed subsequently, rather in such like circumstances, plea of the respondent rightly came to be accepted by the learned Single Judge, which if denied would certainly amount to discrimination, which is otherwise not permissible under law. 16. Moreover, this Court finds that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant if direction issued by the learned Single Judge is upheld, especially when it is not in dispute that at the first instance, respondent was entitled/eligible to be appointed against class-III post. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, we find no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of facts and law and as such, same is dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending applications, if any.