CWP(T) No. 3134/2008 (OA 691/96) 21.4.2009 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondent. The original petitioner unfortunately has been made to knock the doors of the Court, perhaps due to lethargy and laxity and insensitive attitude adopted by the officials of the respondent/board. While serving as Lineman with the respondent/board, the original petitioner in terms of his application dated 28.6.1989 (Annexure A-1) requested the Executive Engineer HPSEB, Jogindernagar to consider his case of retirement, due to medical illness and in the alternate give appointment to his son Shri Madan Pal. It is not in dispute that as on the aforesaid date the respondent had formulated a scheme, which in principle was to accommodate the kith and kin of such of those employees who could not discharge their duties due to medical incapacity. Unfortunately, the respondent did not consider and decide the said application and the original petitioner was constrained to file the present petition in the year 1996. In the return, the respondent has taken a defense that the case for employment of Shri Madan Pal on compassionate basis could not be considered as he was not eligible in accordance with the provisions of the scheme formulated in the year 1990. Why the petitioner’s application was immediately not considered and decision taken thereupon has not been made clear to the Court. It -2- is not the respondent’s case that under the original scheme of 1987, which was applicable on the date of original petitioner’s representation his son was ineligible for consideration for employment on compassionate grounds. During the pendency of the petition the original petitioner died and his son Shri Madan Pal was brought on record. Whether the present petitioner is eligible for consideration and appointment under the scheme of 1987 or not is something which the respondent/board ought to have decided. Under these circumstances it is ordered that the respondent/board shall take a decision on the representation in accordance with the then prevalent scheme. Needless to add it shall be open to the present petitioner to place on record such material as may be necessary and relevant within a period of two weeks. The respondent/board shall afford due opportunity of representation/ hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law. The respondent shall positively take a decision on or before 30th June, 2009. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner and it shall be open for him to assail the same if need so arises. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 21, 2009 (PK)