1. Respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground, hence this writ petition.

2. Following facts are not in dispute:-

2(i). Petitioner’s father-Sh. Sunil Kumar Joshi was serving as regular Clerk with the respondents-Social Justice & Empowerment Department. He died in harness on 23.07.2008. He was survived by his wife, a daughter and a son ( present petitioner).

2(ii). Sh. Sunil Kumar Joshi’s wife submitted an application for providing employment on compassionate grounds to her son (the present petitioner) in August 2008. The application went back and forth on different tables for compliance with codal formalities and documentation. It was finally rejected by the respondents on 10.08.2015, on the ground that petitioner’s case did not satisfy the laid down income criteria.

2(iii). The petitioner preferred Original Application (D) No.26 of 2015 before the State Administrative Tribunal. The OA was disposed of on 19.08.2017 with directions to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the judgment/order passed by this Court in Avinash Chauhan vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1, in case the petitioner was similarly situated, within three months.

2(iv). Petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate ground was decided afresh by the respondents on 03.06.2022. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s prayer for employment on compassionate ground.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition laying challenge to the orders passed by the respondents rejecting his case for employment on compassionate grounds.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

4. Observations.

4(i). In the first order passed by respondents on 10.08.2015, the case of the petitioner was rejected in view of observations of the Finance Department that the case did not meet the financial/income criteria fixed by the Government as per Personnel Department’s instructions dated 24.08.2002, 02.09.2002, 21.12.2012, 18.07.2014 and 19.07.2014.

4(ii). Petitioner had assailed the above rejection order before the learned State Administrative Tribunal in OA (D) No.26 of 2015. Vide its decision dated 19.06.2017, learned Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of decision rendered by this Court in Avinash Chauhan1. Respondents in compliance to the aforesaid direction of the learned Tribunal, once again rejected petitioner’s case by passing following order on 03.06.2022:-

“Kindly refer to your letter No.: 1-98/85-Wel- Part.-1 dated, 30.09.2021 on the subject cited above. In this context, it is submitted that the matter of employment on compassionate grounds in favour of Sh Ishan Sharma S/Lt. Sh Sunil Kumar Sharma Village Sanoura, P.O Gaggal, Tehsil & District Kangra was sent to Govt. for consideration. The Govt. has rejected the matter due to the reason that the case was previously decided/rejected as per Rules/ Instructions prevalent at that time.

In view of this, the copy of letter along with the copy of advice tendered by the Finance Department are enclosed herewith for information and further necessary action please.”

4(iii). The above rejection order passed on 03.06.2022 is bereft of reasons. The only ground mentioned for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that his case had been rejected previously and therefore, it is being rejected once again. This logic given in the impugned rejection order dated 03.06.2022 cannot be sustained.

Learned Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision rendered in Avinash Chauhan1. The impugned order does not even disclose as to how petitioner’s case had been considered/differentiated vis-a-vis decision rendered in Avinash Chauhan1.

4(iv). It may also be noticed that at the time of applying for compassionate appointment, as per the certificate of income issued in favour of the petitioner’s mother on 30.01.2009 (Annexure P-7), their family income from all sources was certified to be not exceeding Rs.59,700/- per annum. The respondents in their reply have, inter alia, pleaded that petitioner’s family was in receipt of following financial benefits:-

1. DCRG Rs.3,46,383/-

2. Leave Encashment Rs.1,38,940/-

3. HPGEIS Rs.36,654/-

4. LIS Rs.50,219/-

Total: Rs.5,59,921/- and Rs.4,725/- as monthly family pension.

In light of law laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the family income and other terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased are liable to be taken into account for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Learned Deputy Advocate General is absolutely justified in submitting so, however, the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 does not even record a finding as to whether the family income of the petitioner was such, which could have taken the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground to be beyond indigency. It is not the case of the respondent that any threshold income was mentioned in the applicable policy/instructions under which the case of the petitioner was considered for employment on compassionate ground. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, is devoid of reasoning, violates the principles of natural justice, and does not even conform to the directions issued by the learned State Administrative Tribunal on 19.06.2017 in OA (D) No. 26 of 2015.

5. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure P-12) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh for his employment on compassionate ground in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also to stand disposed of.