JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J. The respondents have rejected the compassionate employment case of the petitioner, hence the writ petition. 2. Facts 2(i) Petitioner’s father Sh. Surinder Kumar was in regular service of the respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Limited. He died in harness on 16.09.2011 while serving as Sub-Station Attendant in the trade of Electrician. 2(ii) Petitioner applied for employment assistance against the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds on 19.02.2013 (Annexure P-3). Respondents through their communication dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) rejected the case with the observations that (i) Petitioner being matriculate did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the post of Clerk applied for by him and (ii) Certificate of income produced by the petitioner showed his annual family income of Rs.1,44,000/-, which exceeded the annual ceiling limit of Rs.75,000/- fixed under the applicable rules/instructions for providing employment under the Employment Assistance Scheme. Copy of the communication was also addressed to the petitioner. 2(iii) Petitioner once again sought employment, now under the Employment Assistance Scheme 2019 vide his application dated 17.09.2020. This application was eventually rejected by the respondents. The reason for rejection as supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-11) is that he was not a bonafide Himachali and therefore not eligible under the provisions/instructions of recruitment for Class III and IV post in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner feeling aggrieved against rejection of his case by the respondents on the ground of his being not a bonafide Himachali, has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:- “That the impugned order conveyed to the petitioner under Right to Information Act on 19.11.2022, Annexure P-11 rejecting the case of the petitioner on the sole ground that he is not bonafide Himachali may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground from the date his counterpart/juniors were appointed with all consequential benefits.” 3. Submissions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 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. Submissions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 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. , CWP No. 4304/2023 decided on 26.0.2023, 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; 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 on 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. 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. 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. Consideration 4(i) 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. , Civil Appeal No. 255/2025 decided on 11.02.2025 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 through precedents into a rule of law. 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 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 Jain , (2008) 8 SCC 475 ] . b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi , (2002) 10 SCC 246] . 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] , (2008) 13 SCC 730 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 India , (1989) 4 SCC 468 ] 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 Devi , (2009) 11 SCC 453 ]. 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 Das , (2008) 15 SCC 560 ] . g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar , (2009) 13 SCC 600 ] . h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India , (2011) 4 SCC 209 ]. h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India , (2011) 4 SCC 209 ]. i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha , (2021) 20 SCC 695 ] . j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar , (2009) 13 SCC 112 ] . k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana , (1994) 4 SCC 138 ] . l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore , (2011) 13 SCC 131 ] . m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi , (2007) 6 SCC 162 ] . n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari , (2012) 9 SCC 545 ] . o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar , [ (2000) 7 SCC 192 ] ]. p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank ]. q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh , [ (2007) 2 SCC 481 ] ]. r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh , [ (1998) 5 SCC 452 ] ]. s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary , [ (2004) 7 SCC 271 ] ]. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary , [ (2004) 7 SCC 271 ] ]. t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-inharness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, [ (2012) 11 SCC 307 ] Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh , [ (2006) 7 SCC 350 ] , National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand , [ (2004) 12 SCC 487 ] and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja , [ (2004) 7 SCC 265 ] ]. u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh , [ (2007) 4 SCC 778 ] ]. v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL , [ (2000) 6 SCC 493 ] w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar , [ (2019) 3 SCC 653 ] ]. x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar , [ (1994) 2 SCC 718 ] ]. y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur , [ (2007) 9 SCC 571 ] ]. y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur , [ (2007) 9 SCC 571 ] ]. z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma , [ (2007) 8 SCC 148 ] ]. It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of two Judges.” 4(ii) Having heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file, I am not inclined to accept this writ petition. This is for the following reasons:- 4(ii)(a) Petitioner had admittedly applied for compassionate employment assistance on 19.02.2013. This application was within prescribed limitation as his father had died on 16.09.2011, however, communication dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) clearly makes out that the respondents had actually rejected the case of the petitioner. Rejection was not only on the ground of petitioner being unqualified for the post of Clerk applied for by him but it was also on account of annual income of petitioner’s family being in excess of then prescribed maximum ceiling limit. Petitioner accepted the decision of the respondents at the relevant time. It is not his case that he agitated the aforesaid decision at any point of time thereafter. Merely supplying 10+2 certificate a year later, whether for Class IV or Class III post, would not take away the second ground of rejection taken by the respondents in their office communication dated 17.05.2013 about petitioner’s annual family income being in excess of the fixed ceiling limit. This aspect has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. That being the position, turning down the case of the petitioner by the respondents in its communication dated 17.05.2013 practically amounts to rejection of his case. This reason admittedly held its ground. 4(ii)(b) Petitioner’s case having been rejected once, his subsequent applications on 17.09.2020 and thereafter in the year 2022 are of no relevance. Petitioner’s case stood rejected in the year 2013. This reason admittedly held its ground. 4(ii)(b) Petitioner’s case having been rejected once, his subsequent applications on 17.09.2020 and thereafter in the year 2022 are of no relevance. Petitioner’s case stood rejected in the year 2013. Though, reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s second/third applications in their impugned office communication dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-11) are not tenable in view of law laid down in Sandeep Kaur’s 2 , case, however, this cannot advance the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds considering the fact that his application stood already rejected on 17.05.2013 for a different & valid reason. Petitioner had accepted the aforesaid decision. It is not his case that he laid any challenge to respondents’ decision dated 17.05.2013 at the appropriate time. There is no challenge to this decision even in this writ petition. 4(ii)(c) Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K. also held that lapse of time could, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion. 4(ii)(d) In the instance case, as already noticed, petitioner’s father died on 16.09.2011. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 19.02.2013 and his case was rejected by the respondents on 17.05.2013 on the ground of his being unqualified for the post of Clerk applied for by him as also on the ground of his annual family income being in excess of the maximum ceiling limit prescribed at the relevant time. Petitioner accepted the aforesaid decision of the respondents. Even as per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no dispute about petitioner’s annual family income being in excess of the prescribed maximum ceiling limit. Hence the respondents had justly rejected the case of the petitioner in the year 2013. Petitioner’s subsequent application in the year 2020 and/or thereafter in the year 2022 and the decision thereupon by the respondents are inconsequential. Respondents have also contended that petitioner’s subsequent applications were barred by limitation. Petitioner’s case for employment assistance had been rejected by the respondents at the threshold on 17.05.2013 on the grounds, which were accepted by the petitioner and not tested/assailed by him. Respondents have also contended that petitioner’s subsequent applications were barred by limitation. Petitioner’s case for employment assistance had been rejected by the respondents at the threshold on 17.05.2013 on the grounds, which were accepted by the petitioner and not tested/assailed by him. Respondents’ rejecting petitioner’s subsequent applications on 16.11.2022 on different ground is an empty & meaningless formality. This rejection being inconsequential will not advance petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate ground. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.