IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8137 of 2008. Decided on: 30.6.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Ramesh Kumar … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The father of the petitioner was working as Work Charge Pipe Fitter in the respondent-department. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Board, D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla on 5.5.2000, he was retired from Government service with effect from 18.8.2000. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis after the retirement of his father on 18.8.2000. The application was considered by the department and was rejected on 19.10.2001. Mr. Onkar Jairath has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to appointment under the policy framed by the State Government after the retirement of his father on medical ground. He then contended that his brothers are not supporting the family. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Mr. R.K. Sharma vehemently argued that as per the policy framed by the State Government, in case any member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be offered. I have heard the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner’s father has retired on medical ground on 18.8.2000. The application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, as noticed above, on 19.10.2001 on the ground that one of his brothers is in regular service of the State Government and second one is working on daily wage basis. Mr. R.K. Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of paragraph 6 (V) of the reply. It is clearly averred in this paragraph of the reply that in case any member of the family of deceased Government servant is already employed in Government service, the appointment of other member on compassionate ground cannot be made. Petitioner’s one brother is working in regular Government service and the second one is working on daily wage basis. In view of this, the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the competent authority on 19.10.2001. The matter is required to be looked into from another angle. The petitioner’s father has retired on 18.8.2000. The appointment on compassionate basis is made to mitigate the hardship immediately after the death or retirement of Government servant on medical ground. The Court cannot direct the respondents to 3 consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after nine years of the retirement of his father. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 30, 2009. (cr)