IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6694 of 2011-G with CWP Nos.7329 of 2011-I, 7264 of 2011-H, 6804 of 2011-H, and 6795 of 2011-H Date of Decision: 01.12.2011 CWP No. 6694 of 2011-G Kulwant Singh ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …….. Respondents CWP No.7329 of 2011-I Lalit Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …….. Respondents CWP No.7264 of 2011-H Sunil Dutt ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …….. Respondents CWP No.6804 of 2011-H Rattan Singh ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …….. Respondents CWP No.6795 of 2011-H Binesh Devi ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. R.M Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G for respondent No.1. For respondent No.2 : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 28.6.2011, delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.635 of 2011 titled Lekh Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Another, copy of which is taken on record. Facts of the present petition are identical. It is, however stated that LPA against the said decision has already been filed. However, neither has it been listed nor is there any order of stay of operation of the said judgment. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioners also made request for appointment on compassionate basis, which stand rejected by the respondents in view of the new policy dated 15.7.2010 framed by the State of H.P. and adopted by the respondents. However, fact of the matter is that these applications were filed by the petitioners much prior to framing/ adoption of these regulations. As such, petitioners’ request had to be considered in accordance with the then existing policy/regulations/rules. 3. Facts in all these petitions are similar to that of petitioner in Lekh Ram (supra), in which following directions were issued:- “ 9. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall take a decision to provide employment to the petitioner under the Kith and Kin Policy within a period of six months from today strictly as per the seniority of the petitioner as mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No.2.” 4. As such directions issued in Lekh Ram (supra) shall mutatis mutandi apply to this case also. Ordered accordingly. 3 Consequential action shall follow. Needful be positively done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and subject to the outcome of the decision in L.P.A. 5. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. 1st December, 2011 k.sharma