SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's father was employed with the respondent department as Multi Purpose Worker. He died on 17th Sept., 1991. Petitioner's mother submitted an application somewhere in the year 1996 vide Annexure P-1, seeking appointment to petitioner on compassionate basis after his attaining the age of majority. Petitioner at the time of submission of application was five years old. The case was forwarded by the Block Medical Officer to Chief Medical Officer, District Solan on 20.02.1996. Thereafter, the Chief Medical Officer, Solan, District Solan forwarded the original application made by the mother of the petitioner to the Director of Health Services on 02.05.1996. The Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh informed the Chief Medical Officer vide letter dated 15th May, 1996 that since the petitioner was minor at that time, the matter regarding giving him appointment on compassionate basis may be presented again after he attains the age of majority. Petitioner passed his Senior Secondary examination in the month of Oct., 2008. He submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis. The application was forwarded by the Block Medical Officer, CHC Syri, District Solan, H.P. to the Chief Medical Officer, Solan, District Solan, H.P. on 20.12.2008. The Chief Medical Officer, Solan, District at Solan forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9 on 09.01.2009. The Director raised certain objections. The same were removed. Thereafter, the Chief Medical Officer again forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9 on 03.03.2009. The Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh sent a proposal to the Principal Secretary, Health, Himachal Pradesh on 15.05.2009, seeking permission to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk according to his educational qualification. The matter was not decided by the State Government. Petitioner sought information, which was supplied to him vide Annexure P-9. According to the contents of Annexure P-9, the matter was still under consideration of the State Government.

(2.) The respondent-State has filed the reply. According to the reply filed by the State, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the new policy. According to the respondent-State, the priority has to be given for appointment on compassionate basis to widows or orphans. It is also stated in the reply that the case is barred by delay and laches.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.