Dismissed

Mahinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Mar 2022CWPOA/698/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment as a Clerk. The court observed the petitioner failed to submit the prescribed form before filing the petition. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation under the existing policy by 28.2.2022.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the representation for compassionate appointment by 28.2.2022.

Mahinder Kumar Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 4^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)

¶6

698 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

MAHINDER KUMAR SON OF SH. PADAM LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELANGI, POST OFFICE KHAWANGI, TEHSIL KALPA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SH. ANIL BANSAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY HOME GOVT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON, U.S. CLUB, SHIMLA-2, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶14

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, SUB-JAIL, KAITHU,

¶15

¶16

SHIMLA-3, HIMACHAL PRADESH

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

This petition coming on for hearing this day, this Court passed the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):

¶21

(I) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the present applicant for employment on compassionate ground as Clerk under the kith and kin policy and given appointment accordingly, with all the consequential benefits.”

¶22

The record goes to reveal that the petitioner even though is seeking compassionate appointment, but he had not made the representation on the prescribed performa. It is only after filing of this petition that the petitioner has made the representation, (as is evident from pages No. 42 to 72 of the paper book).

¶23

Since there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents have considered and decided the representation made by the petitioner during the pendency of the instant petition, as noticed above, therefore the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to

¶24

the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the

¶25

¶26

petitioner for compassionate appointment, as per the policy existing on the date of death of his late father. The said decision be taken as

¶27

expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 28.2.2022. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶28

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶29

30^th December, 2021 Kalpana

Mahinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kali Dass Vs Arya Samaj Mandir

Tapender Singh Vs State of Hp

Sunita Devi Vs Suresh Kumar

Led Ram Vs State of Hp

Ashok Kumar Vs Sandeep Kumar

Mohan Lal Vs Rajesh Kumar