Arun Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Anr

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Respondents recommended the case of the petitioner alongwith others for employment on compassionate grounds on contract basis against the posts of Clerk. The recommendations were approved by the State. Junior to the petitioner in the list of such recommended candidates has been employed on compassionate grounds. However, petitioner’s case was turned down at the stage of issuance of appointment order in view of his having become overaged in the interregnum, hence, the writ petition.

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

Petitioner’s father Sh. Vidya Sagar Sharma served as a regular Driver in the respondent-Department. He died in harness on 26.05.2009, leaving behind his wife and two sons including the present petitioner. Petitioner applied for employment on compassionate grounds for the post of Clerk in November 2009. Respondents forwarded the employment assistance case of the petitioner to the State Government on 19.11.2009.

Respondent No.2 rejected the case of the petitioner on 28.1.2025 (Annexure P-5) for employment on compassionate grounds due to his having exceeded the maximum age limit prescribed for Government job i.e. 45 years.

It is not in dispute that petitioner’s case remained pending with the State Government from 19.11.2009 onwards without there being any decision thereupon. It was on 05.12.2019 that the Departmental Screening Committee constituted at the Government level, considered & recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Clerk in order of seniority on contract basis under 5% quota meant for compassionate employment. The State Government on 05.05.2021 conveyed its approval for compassionate appointment in relation to 104 applicants (including the petitioner) against the posts of Clerk in order of seniority on contract basis under 5% quota.

Name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 27 of this list of the recommended candidates, whereas one Sh. Ankit was reflected at Sr. No.28 of the list. The seniority of the candidates recommended for appointment was maintained on the basis of date of death of their bread earners. Name of Sh. Ankit figured below that of petitioner as petitioner had lost his father on 26.05.2009, whereas Sh. Ankit’s father had died on 04.06.2009.

It is not disputed that Sh. Ankit has been issued appointment order on the basis of his placement in the list of those recommended and approved for appointment to the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds but the petitioner has not been issued appointment order. The only reason that has come forth is that petitioner though had applied for compassionate employment at the age of 33 years, even at the time of consideration of his case and recommendations made by the Departmental Screening Committee for employing him as Clerk on compassionate ground, petitioner’s age was 43 years, but at the time of issuance of offer of appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner had reached the age of 46 years i.e. he had crossed the maximum age limit of 45 years prescribed for Government employment.

Once it has been admitted that at the time of applying for the post on compassionate grounds, petitioner was within the prescribed age limit, when respondents do not deny that they sat over the case of the petitioner from the year 2009 (petitioner’s age 33 years) till 2019 (petitioner’s age 43 years) and recommended the name of the petitioner for compassionate employment by placing him in the list that was also prepared on 05.12.2019, then petitioner cannot be denied the employment on compassionate grounds on the ground of his having crossed the maximum prescribed age thereafter and before the issuance of appointment order. It was respondents’ fault for not taking prompt action on petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Merely because at the time of issuance of offer of appointment, petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years, in the given facts and circumstances, will not come in way of his appointment on compassionate grounds.

Significantly, in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K.[ Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025, decided on 11.02.2025], the Hon’ble Apex Court held no dependent, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age-bar. If the age of the claimant is found to be within the relaxable limit, discretion is available to be exercised in an appropriate case. Relaxation of age is a step to be taken in the final stages of the entire process and it would arise for consideration provided all other conditions for appointment are satisfied. Relevant portion from the judgment reads as under:-

“35. However, the point having been argued at some length, our views on interpretation of the scheme of 1993 could be of some worth for courts deciding similar such issue in future. We are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the question of relaxation would arise only when the claimant satisfies the other requirements of the scheme of 1993 for compassionate appointment. What seems to be logical is that no dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age-bar. If the age of the claimant is found to be within the relaxable limit, discretion is available to be exercised in an appropriate case. Relaxation of age is a step to be taken in the final stages of the entire process and it would arise for consideration provided all other conditions for appointment are satisfied. If in a given case, such as this, that the family of the deceased is not found to be indigent, the first threshold is not crossed and thereby, the process does not progress any further. In such a case, it would be in idle formality to consider whether relaxation of age should be granted.”

In the instant case, petitioner had applied within the prescribed age limit for securing government employment on compassionate grounds; For ten years thereafter, his employment assistance case remained pending with the respondents; After ten years of petitioner’s applying, respondents recommended his case for employment assistance against the post of Clerk on contract basis, the recommendations were approved by the State; Petitioner’s age was within the set out limit even at the time of recommendations of his case; In the factual background of the case, there is no reason to show door to the petitioner at the stage of issuance of offer of appointment on the ground that in the entire process, petitioner had become over age at the penultimate hour.

For the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed.

The impugned decision contained at Annexure P-5 dated 28.01.2025 is quashed and set aside.

In view of approved recommendations already existing in petitioner’s favour for his employment on compassionate grounds (Annexure P-3) and in view of his junior (in the aforesaid recommendations) having already been appointed on compassionate grounds, there shall be direction to the respondents to offer employment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-3 dated 05.05.2021. This exercise be carried out within four weeks.

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