IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8633 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, 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, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner herein had submitted an application for compassionate appointment in year 2017, on account of death of his father, Mr. Desh Raj, who at the time of his death, was serving as regular employee in the Forest Department, but till date needful has not been done. 2. While making this Court peruse communication dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure P-1), Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that though after receipt of application along with relevant documents, Officer concerned, Nahan Forest Circle, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, had called for some new documents, which were 2 duly supplied, but fact remains that more than five years have passed no action on the application filed by the petitioner has been taken till date. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though communication dated 01.08.2019 suggests that in year 2017 petitioner herein had applied for compassionate appointment, but no supporting document has been placed on record to suggest that pursuant to afore communication, petitioner herein supplied the requisite documents, enabling department concerned to pursue his case. He states that application filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case and taking note of communication dated 01.08.2019 issued under the signature of Conservator of Forests, Nahan Forest Circle, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, which itself acknowledge the receipt of the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the afore authority to consider and decide 3 the application, as detailed in hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from today, in terms of policy for compassionate appointment formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which was in vogue at the time of death of father of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in terms of observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge