The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterates that departmental rules prescribing a limitation period for making applications for compassionate appointment are mandatory. Applications filed nearly eleven years after the employees death are barred and cannot be revived by fresh representations. This decision affirms existing precedent and is binding authority within the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/15680/2025 of RAJENDER KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010437622025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms departmental rule requiring application for compassionate appointment within four years of employee’s death |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Compassionate Appointment |
| Questions of Law | Whether an application for compassionate appointment made nearly eleven years after the employee’s death can be entertained? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the requirement to submit applications for compassionate appointment within four years of the employee’s death, as prescribed by departmental rules, is mandatory. No explanation for the delay was provided, nor was there any reason to entertain a second, belated representation. Therefore, the earlier rejection of the application on grounds of delay is valid, and no further consideration is merited. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s father died in service in July 2010. The petitioner first applied for a compassionate appointment in June 2021 (about eleven years later), which was rejected due to exceeding the prescribed time limit. A fresh representation was made in July 2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Follows and affirms departmental rule requiring application within four years of death/retirement |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicitly reaffirms that departmental rules providing a limitation period (here, four years) for seeking compassionate appointment are strictly enforceable.
- Mere filing of fresh or second representations after rejection does not revive a stale claim.
- Absence of any ground to explain the delay or laches means the Court will not exercise discretion in favor of the applicant.
- This judgment may be cited to conclusively resist belated claims for compassionate appointment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the departmental rules require applications for compassionate employment to be received within four years of the government servant’s death or retirement on medical grounds.
- Petitioner’s initial application was filed nearly eleven years after his father passed away; no explanation was provided for not approaching earlier.
- The earlier rejection of the application on the ground of delay was found valid and strictly within the rules.
- The Court declined to entertain a fresh representation made in 2025, finding no merit or basis to override the express time-bar provisions.
- The case highlights the strict approach taken by courts toward limitation periods in service jurisprudence, particularly regarding compassionate appointments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Father died in service in 2010.
- Applied for compassionate appointment in 2021, rejected on ground of delay.
- Made a fresh representation in July 2025, seeking reconsideration.
Respondent (State/Department)
- Application was not received within the prescribed four-year time frame.
- Rejects compassionate appointment request for being time-barred as per departmental rules.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s father, a Helper in the Jal Shakti Vibhag, died in service on 09.07.2010, leaving behind his wife and two sons. The petitioner first applied for compassionate appointment on 16.06.2021, nearly eleven years after his father’s death. The department rejected this application on 23.11.2021 due to expiration of the four-year limitation period. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a fresh representation in July 2025, seeking the same relief, which was the subject of the current petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed departmental rules which mandate that applications for compassionate appointment must be filed within four years of the government servant’s death or retirement on medical grounds.
- The limitation provision is treated as mandatory, not discretionary.
- No exceptions or grounds for condonation of delay were either argued or found applicable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines have been set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The Court has strictly followed and reaffirmed the existing rule regarding limitation for compassionate appointment, without creating new law or overruling precedent.