IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 5354 of 2008. Decided on: 6th September, 2010. Nisha Rani. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner’s father, who was working on daily wage basis, has died in harness. Petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment after the death of her father. However, it has come in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 that petitioner’s brother is already employed in Indian Army. Thus, the case of the petitioner is not covered under Clause -5 (c) of the Scheme framed by the respondents for granting employment to the wards of those employees who have died in harness. 2. Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s brother is living with her maternal uncle. This cannot be believed. The purpose of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the crises immediately after the death of bread earner of the family. In this case, the death has occurred in 1995. Now, 15 years have 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. gone by. This is another ground for the Court not to interfere in the matter. 3. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 06, 2010. (bhupender)