IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4159 of 2025 Date of Decision:09.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anjana Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, is that application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment is pending consideration for long before the respondent-Department, but till date, no decision has been taken on the same. While referring to communication dated 24.07.2023 (Annexure P-5), learned counsel representing the petitioner states that though petitioner herein submitted requisite documents well within time, but fact remains that till date no decision has been taken. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that case of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that husband of the petitioner late Sh. Vishal Kumar, who was working as TGT(Arts), expired on 09.06.2021, while in service. On 11.08.2021, petitioner has made an application for providing job on compassionate grounds for the post of TGT alongwith all requisite documents. On 08.02.2022, petitioner received communication from the respondent-Department whereby she was asked to apply afresh for the post of JOA instead of TGT. Taking note of aforesaid communication, petitioner though applied for the post of JOA instead of TGT, but no action was taken. On 24.07.2023, certain objections were raised by the respondents. Though, petitioner removed all the objections and filed the detailed reply, but till date no decision has been taken, as a result thereof, petitioner is suffering continuously. 4. 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 a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority 3 concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon, taking note of the policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for compassionate appointment prevalent at the time death of deceased husband of the petitioner. 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 09,2025 (shankar)