IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9216 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 21, 2011 Mast Ram s/o Sh. Jinu Ram, Aged 35 years, presently un-employed, r/o Vill. Sundli, P.O. Jubbal, Teh. Jubbal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of H.P. through Secretary (IPH) to the Govt. of HP, Shimla, HP. 2. SE, IPH Circle, Shimla, HP. 3. Executive Engineer, IPH, Jubbal, Distt. Shimla, HP. Respondents Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents-State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Quash the impugned order A-1 & A-2 issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents; (b) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for giving him appointment on compassionate basis for the post commensurate with his qualifications;” 2. Petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate basis stands rejected by the appropriate authority, in terms of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 communication dated 28.8.2002 (Annexure A-2) on the ground that his real brother is already employed in a Government service. 3. It is vehemently contended by Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, learned vice-counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner’s brother, employed with the Government is actually not residing with the family and is also not contributing towards the expenses for the kitchen. Scheme for appointment on compassionate basis specifically provides that if there is already an “earning member” in the family who is in Government/Semi- Government service, another member of the same family cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. The word “family” has to be construed to include a person who would be a legal heir of the deceased employee and not whether such a legal heir is actually contributing for the sustenance of the family or not. Such would also be the condition of a Government employee who is made to retire on medical reasons. His child, if working in Government job, would disentitle the other children for being considered for a Government job. As such, present petition devoid of any merit is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 21 , 2011 (PK)