Raju Vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University

¶1

2026:HHC:16054

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.7005 of 2019 Decided on: 11th May, 2026

¶3

__________________________________________________________________ Raju ...Petitioner Versus

¶4

Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and another ...Respondents

¶5

________________________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aditi Rana and Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sourabh Chand, Advocate, vice Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate.

¶6

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶7

By way of present petition, the petitioner has

¶8

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶9

“i. The impugned order dated 04.11.2015 i.e. Annexure A-5 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be ordered to be set aside and quashed in view of the facts stated herein above. ii. The respondents may be directed to issue the appointment letter to the applicant on compassionate basis in view of the policy in the facts and circumstances of the case already explained herein above.”

¶10

The facts which emerge from the pleadings are

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent-University vide order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure A-5) in view of the fact that the State Government did not relax the provisions of Clause

¶14

(b) of instructions of the Finance Department dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure R-6) (hereinafter referred to as “instructions”) and not accorded permission to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against Class-IV posts.

¶15

As per the Instructions, if the Board(s) and Corporation(s) have surplus staff in certain

¶16

category/categories, then no compassionate employment should be made in that/those category/categories. In case of the petitioner, his father namely Shri Jagdish Singh was appointed with the respondent-University in the year 1982 and was working as Junior Technician when he died on 07.01.2014. After his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 11.09.2014 (Annexure A-4),

¶17

3

¶18

but as per respondent-University on 28.11.2014. However, his

¶19

claim was rejected on the ground that there was already surplus staff in Class-IV post, though the respondentUniversity had taken the steps to provide the employment to

¶20

the petitioner on compassionate grounds by relaxing the provision of clause (b) of the instructions of the State Government, but the State Government did not grant the approval to appoint him on compassionate ground after relaxing the provisions of instructions.

¶21

The petitioner has placed on record the documents received by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein, it has been mentioned that from the year 2014 i.e. after the death of the father of the petitioner till 24.01.2023, 47 persons were offered appointment on compassionate grounds even on Class-IV posts. When the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected, there were only 15 cases of legal heirs of deceased employees, which were pending with the respondent-University for consideration

¶22

4

¶23

against Class-IV posts and thus, the action of the respondentUniversity in not offering the appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶24

The respondent-University filed reply to the petition and averred that the respondent-University is following the policy and instructions of the State Government issued from time to time for providing employment on compassionate grounds and since the case of the petitioner was not considered under the said policy/instructions of the State Government, his claim has rightly been rejected. Further, it has been averred that the family of the deceased has been provided with financial assistance and hence the

¶25

family of the deceased is not living in indigent circumstances. It has been further averred that the State Government has issued the instructions, wherein it is clearly mentioned that if the Board(s) and Corporation(s) have surplus staff in certain

¶26

category/categories, then no compassionate employment should be made in that/those category/categories. The

¶27

5

¶28

respondent-University has declared 100 category “D” employees as surplus and has sent the list of junior-most 100 category “D” employees to the Additional Chief Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for taking further necessary action. The services of these employees are being requisitioned by the needy departments of the Government of H.P. on secondment basis. The respondent-University has also placed on record communication dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure R-8), whereby it had sent the case of the petitioner for according relaxation in Clause (b) of the instructions along with cases of Wards of deceased employees, who have submitted their applications along with supporting documents/afÏdavits. The detail/list of cases was also enclosed and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.15.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶30

Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel

¶31

6

¶32

representing the petitioner has vehemently argued that no

¶33

doubt when the claim of the petitioner was rejected, the State Government had not granted approval to relax Clause (b) of the instructions dated 01.05.2003, but as per the documents

¶34

placed on record by the petitioner, which he received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, shows that the persons have been appointed on compassionate grounds on daily wage basis even to the post of Peon, which is Class-IV post. Once, the petitioner had submitted his application for employment on compassionate grounds and he was having the requisite qualification to hold Class-IV post, the respondent-University cannot pick and choose the dependents of the deceased for the purpose of offering them appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶35

Before proceeding to adjudicate the matter, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Instructions, which read as under:-

¶36

7

¶37

“No.Fin-F(A)-(11)-1/2002 Government of Himachal Pradesh Finance Department (Expenditure Control-II)

¶38

From

¶39

The Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, SHIMLA-2.

¶40

To

¶41

1. All the Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

¶42

2. All the Heads of Departments in H.P.

¶43

3. All Managing Director(s)/Chief Executive OfÏcer(s) of Board(s)/Corporation(s) in H.P.

¶44

Dated Shimla – 171002, the 01^st May, 2013

¶45

Subject:- Case(s) seeking employment assistance on compassionate ground(s) in PSU(s).

¶46

Sir,

¶47

The issue for providing employment assistance on compassionate ground(s) to the eligible dependent(s) of the deceased Government employee(s) of various Board(s) and Corporation(s) has been engaging the attention of the Government from sometime past. It is clarified that the policy of compassionate employment in Government is not directly applicable to the Board(s) and Corporation(s). The Board(s) and Corporation(s) are free to adopt or not to adopt the policy guidelines issued by the Government, subject to the following:-

¶48

a) If any Board or Corporation intends to provide employment assistance on compassionate grounds, then it has to consider its financial position, resources and manpower requirement/surplus staff before providing employment on compassionate grounds;

¶49

b) If it has surplus staff in certain

¶50

8

¶51

category/categories, then no compassionate employment should be made in that/those category/categories;

¶52

c) The case has to fulfill the indigence criterion fixed by the Government from time to time;

¶53

Therefore, the concerned Board and Corporation may decide/revise its policy keeping in view the above factors.

¶54

Yours faithfully, -sd-

¶55

Special Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, SHIMLA-2.”

¶56

If the staff was declared as surplus, the

¶57

respondent-University cannot offer appointment to the

¶58

persons, after rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 04.11.2015. The list of compassionate appointment given from the year 2014 till 24.01.2023 appended with the rejoinder clearly indicates that the persons have been offered appointment as Class-IV employees i.e. Daily Paid Mali, Peon and Beldar. If it is so, the respondent-University could have offered appointment to the petitioner once his petition was pending adjudication before this Court since 2016 and about 41 persons had been offered appointment after institution of the petition by him.

¶59

9

¶60

Even as per the list prepared by the respondent-

¶61

University, which was submitted for relaxation to the State Government, 6 persons at Sr. Nos.3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 (page 37) have been offered appointment, as per the list of compassionate appointment (Annexure-I) (Page 57) at Sr. No.20, 18, 14, 16, 19 and 28, respectively.

¶62

Once the respondent-University has offered the compassionate appointment to the said persons, whose claims were also rejected by it, it does not lie in the mouth of

¶63

the respondent-University not to grant the benefit of employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶64

No doubt, the appointment by way of

¶65

compassionate cannot be source to make the recruitment, but at the same time, once the respondent-University has offered appointment to the kith and kins of other employees, who were also serving with them and died during service,

¶66

justice demands that the petitioner ought to have been extended the same benefit and since the respondent-

¶67

10

¶68

University has not offered him appointment, it is a case of infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶69

From the documents placed on record, it is not evident that when the dependents of the persons, who have been offered appointment had died, but once the petitioner had applied well within time i.e. on 28.11.2014, immediately after the death of his father, who died on 07.01.2014, the respondent-University ought to have considered his claim too, when the others have been offered appointment. Not offering the appointment to the petitioner has caused grave injustice to him inasmuch as the respondent-University has treated equals unequally which is infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶70

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and

¶71

the impugned order dated 04.11.2015 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent-University to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and offer him appointment from the

¶72

11

¶73

date when the dependents of others have been offered appointment, who died after the father of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the monetary benefits will be paid to him only from today and the past service will be considered only for the purpose of seniority . In case the petitioner is not offered appointment

¶74

within a period of three months from today, the petitioner shall be entitled to the arrears @6% per annum from today till

¶75

its payment to him.

¶76

The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶77

11th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge

Raju v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Chet Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Renuka Sharma Vs State of Hp

Laiq Ram Vs State of Hp

Krishan Vs State of Hp