IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 8414 & 8416 of 2010 Decided on: 5th January, 2011. 1. CWP No.8414 of 2010. Ram Swaroop. vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No. 8416 of 2010. Asha Devi. vs. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers: CWP No.8414 of 2010 “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order Annexure P-5, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed as Class-III daily wage Clerk from the date of initial appointment, that is, with effect from 27.12.2005 and may kindly be directed to pay the consequential benefit accrued to the petitioner including the seniority and further promotion made, if any, to the other similar situated persons like Nagender Singh, who 2 have been given benefit after the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court on 12.11.2009 in CWP (T) No.15008/2008.” CWP No.8416 of 2010. “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order Annexure P-5, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed as Class-III daily wage Clerk from the date of initial appointment, that is, with effect from 15.12.2005 and may kindly be directed to pay the consequential benefit accrued to the petitioner including the seniority and further promotion made, if any, to the other similar situated persons like Nagender Singh, who have been given benefit after the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court on 12.11.2009 in CWP (T) No.15008/2008.” 2. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered by Annexure P-10, judgment in CWP(T) No. 15008 of 2008. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “The petitioner's father died in harness while working as work charge Mason Grade-III. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner initially was recommended for the post of Clerk. However, in accordance with para-2 (b) (ii) of instructions of Personnel Department dated 16.8.2005, the petitioner was offered post of daily wage Beldar on 29.11.2005. He joined his duties on 30.11.2005. He has filed the petition on 8.4.2007 seeking directions to the respondents to consider his case for the post of Clerk instead of daily wage Beldar. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents 3 of appointing the petitioner as daily wage Beldar instead of Clerk is illegal and arbitrary. He has also contended that similarly situate persons have been offered appointment as Clerks by the respondents. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been offered the appointment on compassionate grounds as Beldar vide letter dated 29.11.2005. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner's father died in harness on 7.7.2001. The case of the petitioner was initially recommended for the post of Clerk, however, the same was turned down by the State Government and new decision was taken on the basis of instructions dated 16.8.2005. The petitioner was offered the post of Beldar. He has joined his duties on 30.11.2005. The present petition has been filed in the year 2007. The compassionate appointment is an exception. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, we are of the view that in case similarly situate persons as per Annexure A-9 dated 13.3.2007 have been considered for the post of Clerk on daily wage basis, the case of the petitioner ought to be considered on the same lines within reasonable period.” 3. In view of the submissions of the petitioners that on facts, the petitioners are also similarly situated, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, in the light also of the judgment, referred to above, after verifying the facts ignoring Annexure P-5. The needful, as above, shall be done within a period of four months from the date of 4 production of copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. 5th January, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr/cs) Judge.