Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 947 (HP)

Archana Sharma v. State of H. P.

2025-05-07

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Gist of petitioner’s case is that her services are required to be regularized from the date of her initial appointment as Clerk on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds. On the basis of this relief, petitioner also claims consequential benefits including placing her at an appropriate place in the seniority list of Junior Assistants/Clerks. 2. It is not in dispute that:- 2(i) Petitioner’s husband Sh. Naresh Kapil, was serving as Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis in the respondent-Animal Husbandry Department. He died in harness on 28.05.2011. 2(ii) Respondents carried out an amendment in the Compassionate Employment Policy dated 18.01.1990 under office memorandum issued on 04.09.2012, conveying the decision of the State Government that dependents of deceased contractual employees would also be eligible for compassionate employment. Accordingly, following Sub- Clause (f) was placed below para-2 of the Compassionate Employment Policy dated 18.01.1990:- “(f) A contractual employee who dies while in service leaving his family in immediate need of assistance may be given compassionate employment on daily waged basis.” In view of above amendment, petitioner being wife of late Sh. Naresh Kapil-a contractual employee, became eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. She applied as such. The respondents-Department considered petitioner’s case and offered appointment to her on 19.08.2013 against the post of Clerk on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds. Petitioner accepted the offer and joined her duties as daily waged Clerk on 30.08.2013. 2(iii) Petitioner’s services were regularized on 10.10.2018 in accordance with the regularization policy issued by the respondent-State on 11.05.2018. Petitioner accepted this order as well. 2(iv) Respondents issued seniority lists of Junior Assistants/Clerks in the Animal Husbandry Department from time to time. Final seniority list of Junior Assistants/Clerks circulated on 18.09.2019, tentative seniority list circulated on 15.05.2023 have been placed on record. The incumbents were assigned seniority in these lists keeping in view the date of regularization of their services. The name of the petitioner was reflected in these seniority lists on the basis of date of regularization of her services i.e. 10.10.2018. 2(v). On 31.05.2024, petitioner filed this writ petition with the grievance that she was required to be treated as regularly appointed from the date of her initial appointment on compassionate grounds on daily wage basis i.e. with effect from 30.08.2013. 2(v). On 31.05.2024, petitioner filed this writ petition with the grievance that she was required to be treated as regularly appointed from the date of her initial appointment on compassionate grounds on daily wage basis i.e. with effect from 30.08.2013. That on the basis of this relief, petitioner’s placement in the seniority list is also required to be shifted to the appropriate place i.e. by treating her appointment as regular w.e.f. 30.08.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents had revised the policy for compassionate appointment under office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 Clause 15 thereof provided that a person appointed on compassionate ground in a particular year may be placed at the bottom of all the candidates recruited/appointed through direct recruitment, promotion etc. in that year, irrespective of the date of joining of the candidate on compassionate ground. It was further submitted that the petitioner having been appointed on 30.08.2013 was required to be assigned the seniority/place at the bottom of the batch recruited during the year 2013. 4. The above contentions of the petitioner lack merit. This is for the following reasons:- 4(i) Firstly, it is born out from the record that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the amendment to the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 18.01.1990, carried out under office memorandum dated 04.09.2012. The said office memorandum provided for employing the dependents of the deceased contractual employee on daily wage basis. The respondents had offered appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner on 19.08.2013 on daily wage basis. Petitioner accepted the offer without any demur or protest & joined as such on 30.08.2013. She continued to discharge her duties as such. Her services were regularized by the respondent-Department on 10.10.2018. Petitioner accepted this office order as well. She was accordingly assigned seniority on the basis of her date of regularization. It is pleaded case that first representation, the petitioner ever moved with the prayer for regularizing her services from the date of her initial appointment was on 20.01.2024, which was rejected by the respondents on 19.02.2024. Petitioner has not explained delay and laches in seeking the relief. In this regard, it would also be pertinent to refer to Surinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Others, CWP No. 9094/2013 with connected matters decided on 06.10.2015. Petitioner has not explained delay and laches in seeking the relief. In this regard, it would also be pertinent to refer to Surinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Others, CWP No. 9094/2013 with connected matters decided on 06.10.2015. Some of the points framed therein for adjudication, which are relevant for decision of present petition, read as under:- “Points No.(iv): Whether the applicant can claim appointment on compassionate ground against a higher cadre, once he had been appointed in the lower cadre? Point No.(v): In case a person is appointed on contract basis, whether he is within his rights to seek appointment on regular basis? Point No.(vi): In a given set of cases, in one case the appointment on compassionate ground has been offered against a Class-III post and in other case, the appointment has been offered to a Class-IV post, whether it amounts to discrimination?” While deciding the above points, it was inter-alia held as under by the Court:- “76. The discretion to offer appointment on compassionate ground is vested with the respondents/Authorities and it is for the said Authorities to see whether a person is to be appointed against a Class-IV or Class-III post or on daily wage basis and that discretion cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination, and that too, when a person has accepted the offer of appointment and joined without any demur and enjoyed the benefits. However, there is also no quarrel about the proposition that the Authority, who is vested with the discretion of making appointment on compassionate ground, is expected to exercise the discretion vested in it judiciously and without being influenced, strictly in accordance with the provisions envisaged in the Policy, so that the avowed object sought to be achieved by the State, by framing such a policy, is achieved. 77. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the incumbents, who have been appointed on a particular post and have joined to the said post without expressing any reluctance or protest, such incumbents are precluded from claiming that they should either be appointed to a higher post or should have been given appointment on regular basis, instead of employment on contract basis, or have been discriminated viz. a viz. similarly paced persons.” The above observations are applicable to the facts of instant case. a viz. similarly paced persons.” The above observations are applicable to the facts of instant case. Petitioner had accepted the given offer of compassionate appointment and joined as Clerk on daily wage basis on 30.08.2013 without any demur and enjoyed the benefits over period of more than ten years. At this stage, she is precluded from claiming that she should have been given appointment on regular basis instead of daily wage basis. Endevour of learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking applicability of Compassionate Employment Policy dated 07.03.2019 is otherwise also misplaced as the petitioner’s appointment does not relate to this policy. She was appointed on 30.08.2013 under the policy then in force. 4(ii). The second relief prayed for by the petitioner is dependent upon grant of first relief. Since first relief has not been allowed to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the second relief as well. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.