IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6648 of 2008 Decided on: 2.12.2010 Balak Ram ..…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 & 3. Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by Balak Ram, son of Karam Dass, who was an employee of the respondent/State. Karam Dass was engaged as Conductor on 1.4.1964 which post was re-designated as Cleaner w.e.f. 1.2.1968. It is not in dispute that he met with an accident on 14th of August, 1975. From Annexure R-1 it is apparent that services of Karam Dass were terminated w.e.f. 19th of April, 1976 for the reason that he remained absent from duty. According to the petitioner, Karam Dass could not approach the Court himself for the reason that 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 he was suffering from mental ailment arising out of the accident in question. Order of termination has neither been assailed nor has it been reviewed by the Government. According to petitioner Balak Ram, he attained majority in the year 1995 and thus, was entitled to the benefits of the Scheme promoted by the Government for giving employment on compassionate basis to the dependants of Government employee. According to the petitioner he made representation which is still pending. In fact, reminder in terms of legal notice dated. 5.2.1999 was also served upon the respondents. Since the respondents did not take any action, petitioner filed the instant petition in the year 1999. 2. In the return, respondents have justified the order of termination passed against Karam Dass. This Court is not going into the legality of this order nor is it required to go into the same. 3. Except for bold assertion the words in the petition, there is nothing on record to show that Karam Dass was suffering from any mental ailment and was incapable from approaching the Court. 4. Petitioner’s application/representation for appointment on compassionate ground has yet not been decided by the respondents. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents/State to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 5. It is open for the petitioner to place such material as he may so desire in support of his representation. This be 3 positively done within a period of two months from today. It is always open for Karam Dass to take the Courts’ to such remedies, if any, as are available to him in accordance with law. 5. Needless to add, if required, petitioner shall be afforded opportunity of hearing and authorities shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 2, 2010, (vs)