High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2012

State of H.P. through Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla. The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division District Shimla, H.P. Bhupender Singh, son of late Shri Narender Singh, S.E. (12th Circle) HPPWD, Nahan. Jubbal, (cid:133)Respondents. Writ Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram: The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Petitioner : Ms Shikha Chauhan, vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for the following relief: (cid:147)That services of the petitioner may very kindly be regularized. (cid:148)

My attention is invited to the judgment dated 9th December, 2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in CWP(T) No.4504 of 2009, titled as Ramesh Chand versus State of H.P. and others, copy of which is taken on record, wherein following directions are issued: (cid:147)Petitioner lost his father on 12.10.2001. (cid:133)2(cid:133) candidature appointment Petitioner applied immediately for considering compassionate basis. It is borne out from the record produced by the respondent- State that the application was received in the office on 31.10.2001. In the case of respondent No.3, he lost his father on 18.12.2001. He submitted an application to the Executive Engineer and thereafter the Superintending Engineer sent the matter to the Engineer-in-Chief. The Engineer-in-Chief sent the matter to the Government for according sanction on 20.6.2002. Thereafter, necessary sanction was accorded by the State Government and respondent No.3 was appointed as Clerk on compassionate basis on 7.9.2002. Petitioner, as noticed above, submitted an application for considering his appointment compassionate immediately on 31.10.2001, vide application at page 85 of the record produced by the respondent. However, there was delay in processing his case and the case was received by the Engineer-in-Chief only on 15.7.2002. However, the fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner has been received in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief before the appointment 7.9.2002. Case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per old policy and not amended policy dated 16.8.2005. Thus, it is a case of invidious discrimination as the equals have not been treated equally, as such, violating Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. There is no tangible material on record to establish why the case of the petitioner has been delayed and the case of respondent No.3 has been dealt with promptitude within a period of nine months. In case of petitioner though the application for compassionate appointment was submitted immediately after the death of his father, his case has been processed on 4.10.2005 and the sanction was accorded petitioner as Peon only on 31.5.2006. There is a delay of three years in processing the case of the petitioner vis-(cid:224)-vis respondent No.3, who was appointed as a Clerk on 7.9.2002. to employee respondent No.3

Accordingly, in view of the observations (cid:133)3(cid:133) is allowed. Respondent-State and discussions made hereinabove, petition directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk on the analogy of respondent No.3 within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (cid:148)

2. In the instant case also, it is seen that petitioner(cid:146)s father expired on 16th July, 2001. Petitioner, undisputedly, stands employed, but on contract basis on 10th October, 2007 (Annexure P-1). It is seen that the petitioner(cid:146)s request for compassionate appointment was kept pending in different offices of the respondent/State and as such same ought to have been considered in terms of the old policy as it existed on 16th July, 2001. Delay in the decision is not attributable to the petitioner.