JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's father, who was working as Peon, died on 25th September, 2003.

(2.) The petitioner submitted an application for considering his case for compassionate appointment after the death of his father and the same was recommended by respondent No. 4, i.e. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Sangrah, District Sirmour, to the Deputy Director (Education) on 27th March, 2004. The Deputy Director (Education), Sirmour, forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Director (Education), Shimla on 24th May, 2004. The case of the petitioner was returned back from the office of the Deputy Director to respondent No.4 with the observation that the case was not complete and the petitioner was directed to complete the codal formalities. Thereafter, it is apparent from the record, that the Department of Finance is seized of the matter since November, 2006 and no final decision has been taken so far. The case of the respondent State , in a nutshell, is that the case of the petitioner is now required to be considered as per the norms laid down on 15th July, 2010 read with notification dated 25th September, 2010. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner's mother is getting annual pension of about Rs. 37464/and family owns 58 bighas of land.

(3.) THE fact that the petitioner's mother is getting annual pension of about Rs. 37,464/and the family owns 58 bighas of land should have been discussed and thereafter, the final decision should have been taken and conveyed to the petitioner at the earliest. There is no merit in the contentions of Mr. Vikas Rathore that since the petitioner survives for 9 years, there is no urgency in the matter. The petitioner has completed all codal formalities and the petitioner had submitted his application in the year 2004, which was forwarded by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3. Thus, there is no inordinate delay in pursuing the case. The Finance Department is seized of the matter since November, 2006 and in order to mitigate the hardship, the decision should have been taken instead of delaying the matter. The action of the respondent State of not taking a final decision in the matter is arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, as per old Policy, within a period of eight weeks after the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.