IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6767 of 2008 (OA2375/2000) Date of Decision : April 22, 2010 Sh. Prem Singh Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The father of the petitioner Sh. Budhi Singh, during the course of his employment suffered ailment due to which he became 100% blind. This fact is not disputed at all. Consequently he requested the Government for relieving him and in lieu give employment to a member of his family. His request did not find favour with the Government and consequently it was rejected in terms of order dated 27.3.2000 (Annexure A-2) which reads as under: Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “The matter regarding providing of employment assistance by appointment as clerk on compassionate basis to Sh. Prem Singh s/o Sh. Budhi Singh, Workcharged Beldar (retired on medical grounds) is returned in original alongwith documents with the observation that in accordance with the Personnel Department Letter No. (H-P-U)F(4) 4/89 dated 18.1.1990, Sh. Prem Singh cannot be appointed as a clerk on compassionate basis.” Subsequently even the Superintending Engineer rejected the application by passing the following order on 29.5.2000 (Annexure A-1): “On the captioned subject, the matter of the applicant has been rejected by the Head Office. Hence, the matter in original alongwith copy of letter No. 17894 dated 27.3.2000 from the Engineer-in-Chief, Shimla is forwarded to you and it is requested that the applicant may also be informed in this regard.” Undisputedly these orders do not assign any reasons for rejection of the request. What weighed with the authorities in passing the order is not evident therefrom. The arbitrariness and illegality are writ large. From the record it is evident that the petitioner has placed on record disability certificate (Annexure A-5) of his father showing him to be permanently disabled to the extent of 100%. The authorities adopted an indifferent and insensitive attitude while rejecting the representation. Consequently he was forced to knock the doors of the Court and file OA No. 2375/2000 before the Himachal Pradesh 3 Administrative Tribunal at Shimla which now stands transferred to this Court and renumbered as CWP(T) No. 6767/2008. The petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner’s father was over 55 years of age hence is not entitled to the benefits of the policy framed by the State. This fact is seriously disputed by the petitioner who has also placed on record school leaving certificate (Annexure A-8) of his father and other documents. Without going into the question of the age and also the merits on a limited ground Annexures A-1 and A-2 being illegal are quashed. Considering the fact that the father of the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100%; that there was no other earning member in his family at the relevant time; and also that his children are otherwise eligible for appointment, in the interest of justice, State may sympathetically consider to give appointment to a suitable member of the family. The decision be taken positively within a period of four months. Needless to add the respondent authorities shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner. Liberty granted to the petitioner to place additional material before the authorities. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2010 (PK)