IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8843 of 2008 Decided on : 08.12.2010. Smt. Kamla Devi ..…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. .… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner :Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 7 (a) : “ (a) That the respondent No.4 had no authority or jurisdiction to return the application form of the applicant and further had no jurisdiction whatsoever or authority to make the remarks that the applicant was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds for the reasons stated therein and any decision whatsoever on the application of the applicant could only be taken by the respondent No.1 in consultation with respondent No.2 and the respondent No.4 was simply required to forward the same to respondent No.3 and in turn the respondent No.3 was required to send the same to respondent No.2 and lastly respondent No.2 was required to send to respondent No.1 who alone was competent to take the decision.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No, 2 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 3 : “3. That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because the case of the applicant for providing employment on compassionate ground is not covered under the policy dated 18.1.1990 issued by the Govt. for providing employment on compassionate ground, because the husband of the applicant i.e. late Sh. Sita Ram was working as Vidya Upasak on contract basis in Govt. Primary School, Nal (Swarghat). Hence, the case of the applicant has rightly been rejected by the respondent State.” 3. In view of the above, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before respondent No.1/competent authority within a period of one month from today along with copy of this judgment and the said respondent/competent authority shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 8th December, 2010 CS 3