JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral):- The defendant- appellant State is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below issuing a direction to the appellant to consider the representation of the plaintiff- respondent within three months from the date of passing of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated October 15, 2010. 2. A reference to the facts of the case is not relevant but it is sufficient to observe that the father of plaintiff- respondent Sukhpal Singh died in a road accident while he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The plaintiff- respondent sought a direction from the High Court for consideration of his prayer for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, an order Ex.D5 dated July 17, 2006 was passed recommending the name of plaintiff- respondent to the Home Department for the post of B.Ed. teacher. 3. State counsel has vehemently contended that the plaintiffrespondent is not entitled to any compassionate appointment as per the settled principles of law in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 followed by a number of judgments. It has been submitted that when the plaintiff- respondent is not entitled to a relief, then order of issuance of directions to consider his representation is not sustainable. He has made a reference to A.P. SRTC Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, (2006) 3 SCC 674 in which the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of Courts issuing direction to the authorities to “consider” the representations observing that when the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the impugned order are available, the court should not avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, disposing it of with a direction to “consider” the matter afresh. 4. I have carefully considered the contentions of counsel for the State and gone through the judgment. It has also been observed in the said judgment that when a direction is given to an authority to “consider” it does not amount to an order to the authority to grant the relief sought for. Rather, a direction to an authority to “consider” only requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision in accordance with law, which would include the power to refuse the relief sought. 5. Rather, a direction to an authority to “consider” only requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision in accordance with law, which would include the power to refuse the relief sought. 5. In view of the ratio of the said judgment, I am of the opinion that the concerned authority while implementing the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below would be required to consider the claim of the plaintiff- respondent in accordance with law which would include the reliance of the judicial precedents and determine the right of the plaintiffrespondent for compassionate appointment. As observed in G.Srinivas Reddy’s case (supra), the direction to “consider” would require the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then to take a decision in accordance with law, which would include the power to refuse the relief sought. It is again observed that this order may not be considered as a direction to review the relief sought. It is expected that the judgment and decree of the Courts below will be complied with expeditiously. 6. Dismissed with the abovesaid observations, as no substantial question of law seems to exist. -----------0.K.B.0------------