CWPOA/2985/2019 on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 2985 of 2019 Decided on: 15.10.2026. _______________________________________________________________

Janak Dulari.

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another

.... Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner initially filed CWP No. 8645 of 2013 and on establishment of Learned State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal and upon its abolition, the same has been re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No 2985 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):

a) That Writ of Certiorari may be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2012 [Annexure P-13] whereby the case of petitioner for

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

regularization has been rejected.

b) That writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of her joining i.e., 23.06.2007 in the department as clerk, with all consequential benefits such as revised pay scale from time to time alongwith interest.

c) That respondent may further be directed to regularized the petitioner against the vacant posts as per the policy.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case, as set up, by Learned Counsel is that her husband, namely Shri Ram Swaroop Srimali (since deceased) while in service went missing, leaving the family in distress. In order to tide over the sudden crises, petitioner was appointed as Clerk on Contract basis on compassionate grounds on 23.06.2007, [Annexure P-2] and she joined as such on 23.06.2007 [Annexure P-3] in the office of Director General of Police at Shimla. While working as such, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No 1257 of 2010, the State Authorities have appointed 31 other dependants on various posts on regular basis and therefore, her case should also be considered for change in appointment from "Clerk on contract basis" to "Clerk on regular basis," as given to other persons. It is averred that she applied for Information under RTI on 20.04.2009 [Annexure P-5] and based on this, she submitted a representation to Secretary [Home] on 14.12.2009 [Annexure P-4] and she filed a Civil Writ Petition No 1257 of 2010, and same was decided on 21.04.2010 [Annexure P-7] directing Respondent No 1 to take appropriate action. It is averred that petitioner submitted representations vide Annexure P-8 and on 16.07.2010 Annexure P-9 and in response to this, the Respondent No1-Principal Secretary, [Home] passed a speaking order on 27.07.2010 [Annexure P-10], rejecting the claim of the petitioner for change in nomenclature/status from "Contractual Clerk" to "Regular Clerk" with the findings that after the year no dependent was appointed as Clerk on compassionate grounds and since the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the year 2007, and she cannot claim parity with persons who were appointed earlier. 2(i). It is averred that the petitioner assailed the rejection order dated 27.07.2010 [Annexure P-10] in CWP No. 5348 of 2010, and this writ petition was decided on 05.03.2012 [Annexure P-11], whereby after quashing the Impugned Order, with the findings that once the dependants of the deceased government servants were appointed on regular basis under the ministerial staff therefore, Respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on regular basis as all incumbents who have lost their bread earners constitute a homogeneous class and should be no discrimination regarding appointments to be made on a regular basis. 2(ii). After the passing of Judgment on 05.03.2012 [Annexure P-11], the petitioner filed COPC No 338 of 2012, which was decided on 08.03.2013 [Annexure P-12] in view of the speaking order passed by respondent No 1 on 23.06.2012 [Annexure P-13], rejecting the case on the ground that Finance Department has taken a policy decision on 12.12.2003 for appointing incumbents on contract basis and based on this decision, the Respondent Department has made appointments as Clerk on contract basis on 23.06.2007 and she joined as such on 13.07.2007 and the Respondents had not appointed any person as Clerk on regular basis after

2003.

The rejection order dated 23.06.2012 [Annexure P-13] has been assailed in the instant proceedings with the request to appoint the petitioner as a Clerk on regular basis instead of contract basis with all consequential basis.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY AFFIDAVT:

3. Upon issuance of notice on 12.11.2013, the matter was admitted and the State Authorities have filed a Reply Affidavit dated 01.01.2014 of Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh.

3(i). Reply affidavit indicates that 28 dependants were appointed a Clerk out of which only 2 of them were appointed on regular basis during the year 2003 and remaining 26 persons were appointed as Clerk on Contract Basis in the Respondent-Police department. Reply affidavit indicates that the petitioner cannot claim parity with constables, who were to be appointed on regular basis as per Rule 12.12 of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable in Respondent State. Reply affidavit indicates states no person has been appointed as Clerk after 2003 on regular basis, after the appointment/ joining of petitioner as Clark on contract basis under the respondents and therefore the petitioner has not been discriminated by the respondents in any manner and there is no violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reply-affidavit indicates that husband of petitioner remained willfully absent from duty, for which, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after the proof of charges of willful absence, the services of her husband, Shri Ram Swaroop Srimali were terminated on 27.09.2003. Reply states that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on contract basis on out of turn basis. It is averred that on 16.07.2010 [Annexure R-3], the Respondents called the petitioner for personal hearing with documentary proof to establish, as to whether any person junior to her was appointed a Clerk on regular basis after 2003 till appointment/ joining of petitioner in June/July 2007 and thereafter but she did not appear for personal hearing and also failed to furnish required documentary proof, as in Annexure R-3.

In this backdrop, the claim was opposed by the Respondnets, with the prayer to dismiss the writ petition.

NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:

4. Despite an opportunity having been granted for filing Rejoinder, the petitioner chose not to file any rejoinder, so as to rebut the stand taken by the State Authorities in the Reply Affidavit.

5. Heard Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents-State.

ANALYSIS:

6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 23.06.2012 [Annexure P-13] rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking change in post-nomenclature from Contractual Clerk to Regular Clerk on compassionate grounds, does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or illegality, for the following reasons: ORDER REJECTING CLAIM FOR CHANGE IN POST- NOMENCLATURE ON 23.06.2012 [ANNEXURE P-13] LEGAL AND VALID:

7. Rejection order dated 23.06.2012 [Annexure P 13]

establishes that from the year 2001, 63 appointments were made in the Police Department on compassionate grounds, and 28 persons were appointed as Clerks and out of 28 Clerks, only 2 persons were appointed as Clerk on regular basis, in the year 2003 and remaining 26 persons were appointed as Clerks on contract basis. Once State Authorities have taken a specific stand in Rejection

Order

as well as Reply Affidavit that no compassionate appointment was made on regular basis after the year 2003 coupled with the fact that nothing has been placed on record to establish that any dependant was appointed as Clerk on regular basis after the year 2003 till the date of appointment of petitioner in June/July 2007. Moreover, nothing has been placed on record to establish that any junior has been appointed as Clerk on regular basis. Even, petitioner, who had applied for the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds, [as her husband went missing while in service] cannot claim parity with Constables, who are governed by special rules i.e. Rule 12.12 of Punjab Police Rules, are applicable in the Respondent State. Constables constitute a different class altogether

and parity cannot be claimed with unequal or dissimilar categories. Moreover, the State Authorities have taken a policy decision on 12.12.2002 to make appointments on Contract basis and petitioner has neither questioned the policy decision dated 12.12.2003 in any of the writ petitions filed by her earlier [CWP No 3702 of 2006, decided on 28.12.2006, Annexure P-1; and CWP No 1257 of 2010, decided on 21.04.2010, Annexure P-7 and in CWP No 5348 of 2010 decided on 05.03.2012, Annexure P-11 nor in instant petition, CWP No 8645 of 2013, renumbered as CWP OA No 2985 of 2019] then, the policy decision shall certainly stand in the way of the petitioner from laying a challenge to rejection orders and/or to raise a claim for seeking change in post/status nomenclature from Clerk on Contract Clerk to Clerk on Regular Basis from the date of her initial appointment in June/July 2007 cannot sustain, and the plea is turned down.

CLAIM DEHORS POLICY SCHEME IMPERMISSIBLE:

8. Besides the above, it would be apt to note that Respondent-State had issued the policy for giving compassionate appointments on 18.01.1990. Clause 11

of the policy specifically states that if a dependent has been appointed on compassionate grounds and a dependent accepts the offer without any demur, then, such a dependent has neither any right nor locus to seek change in post/status or nomenclature. Failure to question the provision of Clause 11 of the Policy dated 18.01.1990 disentitles the petitioner for relief. COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT NOT A SOURCE OF RECRUITMENT OR ENDLESS COMPASSION:

9. The Object of Compassionate Appointment is to tide over the sudden crisis or indigency, faced by family, upon death or in case a Government Servant during service goes missing [as in present case]. Plea of petitioner for change in post/status or nomenclature from contractual appointment to regular appointment as Clerk, cannot sustain, as Compassionate Appointment is not a source of recruitment. No person, including petitioner, has a vested right to lay a claim for specific post, carrying a specific rank and nomenclature. An eligible dependant has a limited right for consideration subject to eligibility in accordance with the applicable policy of Compassionate Appointment. Petitioner has not been able to establish that the State Authorities have violated any provision of the policy of employment on compassionate grounds. Having been appointed/joined as Clerk on contract basis, the indent circumstances, necessitating assistance had ceased to exist. Moreover, once the petitioner, being a dependant of government servant [who went missing during service] was offered appointment as Clerk on Contract and she accepted the offer and also joined without any demur and in such an eventuality, the right of consideration for Compassionate Appointment was consummated, then, further or second consideration for another or higher post was impermissible, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Town Panchayat and others v. M. Jayabal and another (2025) SCC Online SC 2794. An appointee has to strive in service career like other employees and neither any special treatment can be extended or meted out nor claimed by an appointee-dependant dehors the provision of Clause 11 of the Policy-Scheme dated 18.01.1990, as there cannot be an endless compassion. Since an eligible dependant has no vested right for compassionate employment, to a specific post with a certain rank, status or nomenclature then, after having accepted the offered job, the crises are deemed to have been over, as broadly outlined in the judgment in Surinder Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others [CWPOA No. 2668 of 2019, decided on 09.01.2026]. Even, plea of petitioner alleging discrimination cannot sustain, for the reason, that compassionate appointment is an exception to the ethos of public employment embedded in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, no person-dependant can rake up the plea of discrimination, except in the case, of facsimile fact-situation, amongst dependant(s) raising a claim for same post, under the same Policy-Scheme, in the same Department and for the same category. Resultantly, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of petitioner for change of post and Impugned Order dated 23.06.2012, [Annexure P-13] is upheld.

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS:

10. Upon query by this Court, Learned Counsel for petitioner fairly submits that during pendency of instant petition, petitioner has superannuated from the promotional posts and besides the above discussion, subsequent events, dissuade this Court to accept the claim raised and the same is disallowed.

11. No other point was raised/argued.

DIRECTIONS:

12. In view of above discussion and for reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition is dismissed, in following terms:

(i) Impugned Rejection

Order

dated 23.06.2012 [Annexure P-13], is upheld;

(ii) Claim of petitioner for seeking change in appointment from Clerk on Contract to Clerk on Regular Basis from June/ July 2007, cannot be accepted dehors provision of Clause 11 of the Policy of Compassionate Appointment and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Jayabal (supra);

(iii) Parties to bear respective costs.

13. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge

October 15, 2026 (Anita)