IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1529 of 2009 and CWP No.1750 of 2010 Decided on : July 14, 2010 CWP No.1529 of 2009 Parshotam Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. CWP No.1750 of 2010 Savita Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocate, in CWP No.1529/2009. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate, in CWP No.1750 of 2010. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents- State. Ms Suvrata Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.5 (in CWP No.1750 of 2010). Surjit Singh, J (Oral) By this judgment, two writ petitions, particulars whereof are given in the heading of this judgment, are being disposed of, as the two matters are interconnected and based on same factual matrix. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. CWP No.1529 of 2009 has been filed by Parshotam Lal, seeking a direction to respondents No.1 to 6 to appoint him as part-time Water Carrier. His case is that he had been working as part-time Water Carrier since 1997, without being paid any salary, on the assurance of the Pradhan of the Panchayat that as and when funds were received, he would be appointed and given salary. His grievance is that now, vide order dated 16th February, 2009, Annexure P-8, respondent No.7 Savita Devi has been appointed, by respondent No.3, ignoring his claim. 3. CWP No.1750 of 2010 has been filed by Savita Devi, who, according to the averment in CWP No.1529 of 2009, has been appointed, ignoring the claim of the petitioner in the said CWP No.1529 of 2009. Her grievance is that despite her having been appointed by respondent No.3, the Pradhan of the Panchayat, impleaded as respondent No.5, is not issuing the formal appointment letter and is not allowing her to join. 4. On behalf of respondents No.1 to 5, it is stated that Parshotam Lal, petitioner in CWP No.1529 of 2009, never applied for the post of part-time Water Carrier and, therefore, question of appointing him did not arise. It is also the case of the said respondents that Savita Devi, petitioner in CWP No.1750 of 2010, has been appointed, on compassionate grounds, in accordance with Para-12 of the …3… Scheme, because of her being widow and also on account of her being a person living below poverty line. 5. Plea taken by respondents No.1 to 5 that Parshotam Lal never applied for the post is not correct. There are two letters, Annexures P-6 and P-7, issued by respondent No.3, by which petitioner Parshotam Lal was called upon to submit certain certificates, so that his matter, regarding appointment as part-time Water Carrier, could be considered. These two letters clearly show that Parshotam Lal had applied for the post. 6. Parshotam Lal was required to submit certificates, vide letters Annexures P-6 and P-7. In Para-4 of his petition, he has categorically stated that he had submitted such papers. This averment has not been denied by respondents No.1 to 5 in their reply. 7. From the above discussion, it is clear that Parshotam Lal had made application for appointment as part-time Water Carrier, long before petitioner Savita Devi applied for that post. He too belongs to a poor family. His economic status is of ‘Below Poverty Line’, per certificate available on record. Also, he belongs to IRDP family and, thus, he is also eligible for appointment, on compassionate grounds, under Para-12 of the Scheme. 8. In view of the abovestated position, both the writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to respondent …4… No.2 to consider the claim of both, Parasham Lal and Savita Devi, for appointment as part-time Water Carrier in Government Middle School, Deol, on compassionate grounds, in accordance with Para-12 of the Scheme and to recommend one of them, whom he considers more deserving, for appointment, to the Pradhan of the Panchayat. He will take the decision within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by him. Pending applications in both the petitions stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petitions. July 14, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J