IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7989 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Nitish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that despite there being repeated applications, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has not been considered, and as such, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to issue directions to the respondents to do the needful within stipulated time. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that father of the petitioner, who was working in Health Department, died in harness on 20.03.2025, leaving behind his wife Smt. Mamta Devi, his son Nitish Kumar (petitioner), his daughter Shalini and his mother Bimla Devi respectively. Immediately after the death of his father, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. While making the application, he submitted all requisite documents including Income Certificate, but fact remains that despite repeated reminders no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents. Finally the petitioner submitted representation dated 11.02.2025 to respondent No. 2 for consideration of his request for Compassionate appointment (Annexure P-4), however, till date, no response has been received. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now representation of the petitioner must have been decided, but if not, the same shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 2 Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of provision contained in Transfer Policy and pass appropriate orders. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3