1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 16625 of 2008. Date of Decision: 24th December, 2010. Chhan Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Raghuvanshi, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Petitioner is son of Sh. Shobha. It is not disputed that Shoba Ram was employed with the Government. In terms of letter dated 27.3.2002 (Annexure A-2), Smt. Godmu Wd/o Shobha requested that her son Chhan Singh be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. From the record, it cannot be disputed that Sobha was employed with the Government. It also cannot be disputed that the State has come out with a scheme for giving employment on compassionate grounds to the wards of deceased employees who die in harness. Apparently, Government did not take any action on the request made by Smt. Godmu, consequently, Chhan Singh has filed the instant petition. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. In the reply, it is averred that petitioner is not eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds for the reason that other members of the immediate family are already in Government service. Hence according to the petitioner, such members of the family already stood separated during the life time of Sh. Sobha Ram. However from the reply, it is clear that the representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration and not rejected so far. Now these disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in these proceedings. 4. Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the fact that the application of the petitioner is yet to be decided, a direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the policy framed by the Government. 5. Liberty granted to the petitioner to make a detailed application supported by documents. Needful be positively done within a period of four weeks from today. Respondents are directed to decide the petitioner’s case, by passing a speaking order and if necessary, affording opportunity of representation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol) Judge December 24, 2010 (KRS)