IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13623 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Nisha Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar and, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Shubham Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband, steps have not been taken by the Department concerned for providing appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the pleadings adduced on record, submits that pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, case of the petitioner already stands forwarded by the department concerned to the higher authorities and as such, it cannot be said that application filed by the petitioner has not been considered. 3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that husband of the petitioner namely, Som Raj, died in harness, while working as regular employee in the respondent-Department on the post of TGT. After the death of her husband, petitioner submitted her case for compassionate appointment alongwith necessary documents, but her case was returned back on one reason or other and ultimately respondent No.2 resubmitted the case of the petitioner to the competent authority on 09.06.2021(Annexure P-4), but fact remains that till date, no final decision qua the same has been taken. 4. Having carefully perused communication dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-4), this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of 3 judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4090 OF 2019, titled as Ashish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein it has been categorically held that application for compassionate appointment shall be considered in terms of the policy in vogue at the time of death of the deceased employee, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of policy in vogue at the time of death of deceased employee. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 25,2025 (shankar)