IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 14025 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 18, 2010 Sh. Kishori Lal 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 : Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) CMP(T) No. 217 of 2010 Application allowed. Affidavit taken on record. CWP(T) No. 14025 of 2008 2. There is no dispute that petitioner’s father Sh. Inder Singh was working as a Chowkidar with the respondents. There is also no dispute that while on duty Sh. Inder Singh expired in the year 1996. It is also not disputed that petitioner is the son of the deceased employee and is entitled to the benefits of the schemes promoted by the Government for providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the wards of the deceased employees. As on the date of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 death of Sh. Inder Singh petitioner was minor. Upon attaining majority in the year 2002 vide application dated 22.11.2002 (Annexure A-2) sought appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the policy framed by the Government. Noticeably petitioner annexed the requisite documents alongwith the application. Vide letter dated 17.7.2003 petitioner was informed by the appropriate authority that his application was under process. He was asked to furnish an affidavit expressing his willingness to accept employment against Class – IV post. This was duly complied with by the petitioner which is evident from letter dated 5.8.2003 (Annexure A-4). Vide letter dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure A-5) the Executive Engineer, I&PH, Division, Reckong Peo sent the documents including petitioner’s certificate of educational qualification, to the superior officer, copy was also marked to the petitioner. It appears that Government did not promptly take any action on the petitioner’s application and only vide letter dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure A-6) asked him to submit the certificates duly attested by the S.D.M./S.D.O. (C). Even this was done by him. Finally vide letter dated 2.2.2006 he was offered appointment to the post of Daily Wage Beldar under I&PH Division, Reckong Peo on compassionate grounds. Petitioner accepted the same and gave his joining report on 16.2.2006. 3. Originally petitioner prayed that his appointment as a Peon be regularised. However during the course of the proceedings it was so discovered that he was otherwise entitled to appointment to the 3 post of Class-III and the respondents themselves had accorded such benefits to similarly situated persons, which fact stands established by orders dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure A-10) and 13.6.2005 (Annexure A-11). In terms thereof on compassionate grounds Sh. Dharam Bhagat and Sh. Tilak Raj were offered appointments as Clerks on temporary basis. Accordingly he prayed for the same as benefits of higher post was accorded to similarly situated person. 4. In the return filed by the State it is averred that case of Sh. Dharam Bhagat and Sh. Tilak Raj were considered and offer made in terms of policy dated 18.1.1990 but however in the case of petitioner policy dated 18.1.1990 stood modified vide letter dated 16.8.2005 and consequently he could not be offered appointment on regular basis to Class – III or Class IV posts. 5. Vide policy dated 18.1.1990 (Annexure – RA) appointment on compassionate grounds could be made only to the lowest rank of Class IV – Class III posts as applicable to the relevant facts. Petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was made way back in the year 2002 and much prior to the modification of the issuance of letter dated 16.8.2005 modifying the earlier policy dated 18.1.1990 and appointments offered to Sh. Dharam Bhagat and Sh. Tilak Raj. That there were no posts of Class – III available with the Government cannot be disputed in view of the appointments offered to Sh. Dharam Bhagat and Sh. Tilak Raj. In any event this also is not the stand taken by the 4 respondents. Petitioner otherwise is fully entitled to and eligible to be appointed on Class - III post in terms of the unamended policy. 6. Petitioner had moved the application in the year 2002 and also prior to 25.8.2003 itself and complied with all formalities as conveyed to him. There has been no delay on his part. There is nothing on record to even show to the contrary. Respondents kept on sitting on the petitioner’s application for more than four years without any justifiable and explainable reason for delay. Therefore now the plea taken by respondents that the petitioner’s case was to be considered and processed under the revised policy is legally untenable in law. He has to be offered appointment to Class-III post and cannot be discriminated. 7. Consequently direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment to Class – III post. Ms. Sulochna Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to forego his seniority and monitory benefits. The Government shall take this fact into account while complying with the orders. Necessary and consequential action be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 18, 2010 (PK)