Himachal Pradesh High Court
LPA/95/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
LPA No. 95/2019 & CMP (M) No.539/2019 Decided on: 30.12.2019. ________________________________________________________ Hemavati
…..Appellant/Applicant Versus NHPC Ltd. & Others …..Respondents ________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant/applicant : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.(oral) This Letter Patent Appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, is barred by 1 year 11 months and 22 days. The delay in filing the appeal has not been cogently explained by the appellant/applicant and the application seeking condonation of delay is vehemently opposed by the non-applicants/ respondents.
2. However, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case as well.
3. The appellant had sought compassionate appointment in favour of her son on the ground that her husband was employed as 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11321-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:42:18 :::CIS
Senior Foreman with the respondents and died on 22.12.2002 after rendering about 25 years of service.
4. The case of the appellant seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her son was rejected by the respondents on 31.08.2006. It is admitted case of the parties that order of rejection dated 31.08.2006 was not assailed by the petitioner before the filing of the writ petition in 2015. No fault can be found in the observations and findings of learned Single Judge that compassionate appointment is primarily to help the family of deceased employee to tide over the financial crises, which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread winner and, therefore, in the facts of the case, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by the petitioner after a lapse of more than 15 years after the death of her husband. No justification was given by the appellant in the writ petition or in the appeal for not challenging the impugned order dated 31.08.2006 rejecting her representation at appropriate time.
5. In view of above, we find no merit in this Letter Patent Appeal and, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant that in case some amount is due to her or her husband under any applicable policy/scheme at the time of death of her husband, she may represent to the respondent claiming such amount within a period of three weeks. Where after, the High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11321-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:42:18 :::CIS
representation shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with law within one month thereafter. The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also, pending applications, if any. (L. Narayana Swamy)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 30th December, 2019 (reena)
High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11321-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:42:18 :::CIS
High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11321-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:42:18 :::CIS