IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12419 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naveen Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A. K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and 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 for the petitioner is that till date, case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been processed. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition reveals that late father of the petitioner, who was serving in I&PH Department on regular basis, died in harness on 13.6.2019. Petitioner being LR of deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment vide representation dated 24.8.2020 (Annexure P-1). Though department concerned after having processed the case of the petitioner forwarded the same to the - 2 - government for approval but till date, nothing has been heard by the petitioner. Through RTI, petitioner received information that case of the petitioner has been considered and found fit by office committee at Headquarter level vide proceedings of meeting issued vide office order dated 29.4.2021, however, he will be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds as per availability of vacant post. Afore information was never received by the petitioner, rather he could procure such information through RTI Act. 2. Though Mr. Ravi Chauhan, while referring to information received under RTI Act, attempted to argue that as and when turn of the petitioner in seniority comes, he would be offered appointment on compassionate grounds, but since no intimation with regard to approval of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been given to the petitioner till date, this Court can well understand the anxiety of the petitioner, who has been eagerly waiting for appointment for more than five years. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to send communication to the petitioner, enclosing therewith decision taken by office committee, thereby recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and also stating therein that in how much time, he will get the appointment order so that petitioner does not have to wait endlessly. Needful in terms of aforesaid order - 3 - shall be done expeditiously, preferably within ten days. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 31, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge