IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Exe. Petition (T) No. 122 of 2008 in Exe. Petition No. 8 of 2005 Date of Decision 1st July ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Ramesh Thakur & another ….Petitioners. Versus HRTC ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) This execution petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the allegations that late Shri Chet Ram was deputed for training of Conductor w.e.f. 24th February, 1981 to 2nd March, 1981 with the HRTC. The bus on which Chet Ram was working met with an accident on 28th February, 1981. He sustained fatal injuries and died. At that time, the age of the first applicant herein Ramesh Thakur was only seven days. The petitioner pleaded that a number of representations were made 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 for consideration of the case on compassionate ground but it vain and ultimately he was forced to approach the Administrative Tribunal for seeking such directions. 2. Vide its judgment dated 15th July, 2004 the petition was allowed in the following terms: “For the aforesaid reasons, present Original Application is allowed after setting aside impugned order Annexure P-14. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the applicant to which he is already entitled. Needful be done within four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of order.” 3. This order was challenged by the respondent Corporation by way of CWP No. 1036 of 2004, which petition was dismissed by this Court. 4. The petitioner now seeks execution of the judgment. In reply, the Corporation has appended an order dated 27th July, 2005 appointing the first applicant herein as a conductor on contract basis. The order was passed in consonance with the policy followed by the Corporation. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that regular appointment has not been offered to the first applicant herein although the Tribunal as also the High Court directed such appointment. 6. A reading of the judgment of the Tribunal as also of this Court do not lead to any such conclusion. It is now well settled by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that compassionate appointment is offered in terms of the policy implemented/followed by an employer. It is not a matter of right but is adopted only to tide over financial crisis and to ensure that 3 kith and kin of the deceased do not end up in penury. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the directions that the order of appointment reasonably takes care of security of the petitioner herein. I direct that his service shall not be terminated only on the ground that he has been appointed on contract basis but the Corporation will continue his appointment. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. July 1st, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4