IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4612 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 9, 2011 Parveen Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R. K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondent- state. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In terms of the impugned order dated 6.6.2010 (Annexure P-12) petitioner’s request for appointment as “Dependents of Battle Causality” was rejected. Petitioner is aggrieved of the same. 2. From the record it is quite apparent that petitioner’s mother i.e. Smt. Kashmiran Devi was initially given appointment, as a dependent, in terms of letter dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure P-2). Due to attending circumstances she was unable to accept the same, but requested that the benefit be accorded to her son i.e. the present petitioner, upon attaining the age of majority. Upon attaining majority, petitioner approached the authorities and in terms of letter dated 4.4.2007 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (Annexure P-9) the Chairman of the State Selection Committee, Ex- servicemen Employment Cell, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, H.P. informed Smt. Kashmiran Devi that:- “Subject:- Regarding Employment as a Special case to the Dependent of late Sh. Bakshi Ram, VPO Cholthara Tehsil Sarkaghat Distt. Mandi (HP). Memo, With reference to your application dated 30-1-2007 addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh received through the office of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HP, Ex-servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur vide their letter No. HPESCO-HM-2(B)(Estt-47)/87-2401 dated 7-3- 2007 on the subject cited above. As per the existing policy of the government of Himachal Pradesh, your son does not come under the eligibility criteria for Dependents of Battle Causality. However, as a special case, the State Selection Committee has taken a decision to approve your case, as a one time exception, to consider his name for appointment as per his seniority and qualification. 2. It is also suggested to get X-10 Card of your son renewed in time and keep liaison with the concerned employment exchange for unreserved vacancies.” 3. In view of the aforesaid decision already taken in favour of petitioner the impugned letter is unsustainable. Petitioner’s case ought to have been considered by the appropriate authority by taking into account Annexure P-9. Consequently the impugned letter (Annexure P-12) is quashed. There is direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners request for appointment as dependent by taking into account Annexure P- 9. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of 3 receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Interim order dated 5.8.2010 shall continue. Dasti copy. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 9, 2011 (PK)