2025:HHC:3682 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2641 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jagar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, 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, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(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 thought Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, HPPWD, Nahan vide communication dated 26.07.2018, addressed to the Engineer-in- Chief, Himachal Pradesh had recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, but till date, no final decision has been taken. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3682 2. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that though he has reason to believe and presume that by now decision, if any, must have been taken upon communication dated 26.07.2018, but if not already taken, shall be taken expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh to ensure action upon communication dated 26.07.2018, issued by Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, HPPWD, Nahan,(Annexure P-1), whereby application for employment on compassionate ground received on behalf of the petitioner was resubmitted after attending upon the observations raised vide letter dated 17.04.2018 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 27, 2025 (shankar)