IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12592 of 2008 Decided on : 29.04.2.2011 Shital Kumar ..… Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Banyl, Advocate, vice Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “The respondents may be directed to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground as per his qualification and Ann. P1 be quashed and set aside.” 2. In reply the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because the representation of the applicant ahs rightly been rejected by he respondent No.I vide order dated 19.3.2005 i.e annexure P-I as annexed by the applicant with the present original application because according to the record of the case the applicant is living with his mother and wife, his three sisters are all married and not dependent upon either him or his mother. The family is receiving Rs. 5138/- per month as family pension and has also received Rs.6.50/- Lakhs as terminal benefits from the Government and adequate property and no major liabilities of children to be educated or married off. Hence the present original application filed by the applicant to seek the employment on compassionate ground deserves to be dismissed.” 3. In the short affidavit filed by the Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, in compliance of order dated 3.1.2006, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, when the matter was pending in the said Tribunal and has since been transferred to this court and registered as CWP(T) No. 12592 of 2008, it is stated as under vide para 2:- “That as per the record the deceased Sh. Gian Chand died on 1.8.2002 and the approval to appoint Sh. Manoj Kumar s/o deceased Sh. 3 Gian Chand was conveyed by the Govt. on 6.8.2003 whereas Sh. Sohan Lal died on 28.4.2003 and the case of the applicant for providing the compassionate appointment was rejected by the Govt. on 17.8.2004 i.e after the expiry of one year from the date of approval of Sh. Manoj Kumar s/s Sh. Gian Chand. Therefore, the applicant can not refer the case of Sh Manoj Kumar in support of his claim. Each case is decided on merit thereof and both cases can not be similar in nature.” 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within one month from today, the said respondent shall consider the same sympathetically and take final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 29th April, 2011. Lsp*