IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14261 of 2025 Date of Decision: 4.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General 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 Ms. Salochna Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner is that no action upon the application filed by the petitioner, requesting therein for compassionate appointment, is being taken by the respondents despite repeated requests. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that father of the petitioner, who was working as Chowkidar on regular basis in the respondent department i.e. HPPWD Division Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, died in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 harness on 1.11.2014. After the death of his father, petitioner being his Legal Heir, applied for getting compassionate appointment to the post of Beldar/Class-IV. Though petitioner submitted application, complete in all respects, but fact remains that till date no decision has been taken upon the same. 4. On 3.8.2017, case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 and pursuant to afore communication, petitioner, completed all formalities as were called upon to complete, but yet no decision was taken and as such, he approached this Court by way of CWPOA No. 2914 of 2020, which came to be disposed of on 10.11.2021 with a direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner within six weeks. 5. Since petitioner despite there being direction passed by this court, failed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time, he filed COPC No. 219 of 2023. After disposal of afore contempt petition, respondents called the petitioner for personal hearing. Petitioner attended the personal hearing in the office of respondent No.2 and submitted in writing that he has passed only 5th class examination and appeared in 8th standard examination, certificate whereof is awaited. Petitioner also submitted that he requires more time to appear in 10th Class examination. In the year 2024, petitioner passed his matriculation and submitted his documents. On 3.4.2025, petitioner submitted application in the office of respondent No.3, praying therein for submission of matriculation certificate, which was further forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. More than 10 years have passed, but 3 till date, petitioner has not been provided compassionate appointment and as such, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider his pending representation in the time bound manner. 6. Though Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General while seriously refuting contention raised by the petitioner that application of the petitioner has not been considered for long, submitted that earlier application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess requisite qualification, but he fairly admitted that on account of submission of 10th class certificate, case of the petitioner is required to be considered. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to take final decision within six weeks upon the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, who had admittedly died in 2014. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing needful in terms of instant order shall take note of policy, which was in vogue at the time of death of the father of the petitioner as well as certificate of 10th submitted by him in the year 2025. 8. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 4, 2025 manjit