STATE OF H.P Vs. UDAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Service on respondent No.2 is dispensed with considering that he is only a proforma-respondent and also was a co-respondent with the appellant-State in the writ petition.

(2.) The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has relied a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No.4504 of 2009, titled as Ramesh Chand versus State of H.P. and others, and held that in the present case the father of respondent No.1-writ petitioner expired on 16/7/2001. The writ petitioner undisputedly stood employed on contract basis on 10/10/2007. His request for compassionate appointment was kept pending in different offices of the respondent/State and as such, the same ought to have been considered in terms of the old policy as it existed on 16/7/2001 because the delay in the decision is not attributable to the writ petitioner. On that note, the learned Single Judge held that directions issued in relied judgment, Ramesh Chand (supra), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case and the State Government was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, particularly when the respondents themselves have regularized the services of private respondent on the same analogy.

(3.) Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, has cited before us a copy of the order dtd. 6/9/2021, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19252/2018, titled as Seema Kausar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the policy, which was prevailing at the time when the deceased employee died and the application for compassionate appointment was made, is only required to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP up-holding such view taken by the High Court.