IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1748 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.06.2010 __________________________________________________________________ Shri Parvez Akhtar .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2 : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (oral). Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 2, directing it to appoint him as Clerk on compassionate grounds, in terms of letter dated 18th August, 2003, Annexure P-16. 2. Petitioner's father was employed as Tyreman with respondent No. 2, Himachal Road Transport Corporation. He sought retirement on medical grounds. His request was acceded to. Petitioner, then, applied for appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds. He was intimated, vide letter, Annexure P-16, which is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- dated 18th August, 2003, that his name had been approved for appointment in Class-III posts under Kith and Kin policy and included in the waiting panel. He was further informed that owing to grim financial position of the Corporation, employment on compassionate grounds under Kith and Kin policy was not being offered to anybody for the time being. Thereafter, petitioner made many representations, but did not get any favourable response. Vide letter dated 11.12.2008, copy Annexure P-21, Chairman of All Himachal Muslim Welfare Society, through whom the petitioner had been pursuing his case with the respondents, was informed that all cases of appointment on compassionate grounds had been sent to the Government, seeking permission to fill up the post of Clerks. State Government, which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1, is stated to have not conveyed its decision to the Corporation, i.e. respondent No. 2, on its request to fill up the post of Clerks. 3. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any reply. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply, in which the abovestated facts have not been controverted, but it is stated that, now, there has been a change in the policy regarding appointment on compassionate grounds and under that policy, employment is given only to the widows of employees of Corporation, who die in harness. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. On the last date of hearing, direction was given to respondent No. 2 to produce its by-laws showing that Government's permission was required for making all appointments -: 3 :- on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel submits that no such by-laws are there. He has, however, produced two communications, one dated 23rd November, 2004, and the other dated 21st March, 2005, one written by Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the other by the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to various Administrative Secretaries and Heads of Public Sector Undertakings / Boards / Autonomous Bodies etc. per which proposals for appointment on compassionate grounds are required to be submitted to the Finance Department through the Administrative Department. Respondent No. 2, being an autonomous body at Corporation of a Statute, i.e. the Road Transport Act, it is not supposed to have any Administrative Department and if it is so, the instructions conveyed through the aforesaid two communications cannot be said to be applicable in the case of respondent No. 2. 6. In any case, these instructions were issued subsequent to the issue of letter dated 18th August, 2003, Annexure P-16, by which the petitioner was conveyed that his name had been approved for appointment in Class-III posts under the Kith and Kin policy, meaning thereby that the decision to appoint the petitioner had been taken before the issue of the aforesaid two letters. The decision was not given effect to only because of financial crunch. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 that it is unable to give employment to the petitioner, even now, on account of any financial difficulty. -: 4 :- 7. In view of the abovesaid position, writ petition is allowed and respondent No. 2 is directed to implement its decision of appointing the petitioner in Class-III post as conveyed to him, vide communication dated 18th August, 2003, Annexure P-16. These directions be complied with within two months from today. (Surjit Singh) Judge 30th June, 2010 (rajni)