HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 13836/2008 Date of Decision: October 19, 2011 Mahinder Singh ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief:- “i) That the impugned action of the respondent vide letter dated 2.1.2006 Annexure A-2, may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in the department.” 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s father was serving the respondents and he died during the course of his employment. It is also not in dispute that respondents have adopted a policy of giving appointment to the wards of the deceased employees on compassionate basis. In the instant case, petitioner being the dependant ward of deceased employee had applied for appointment on compassionate basis, which request was turned down vide orders dated 2.1.2006, (Annexure A-2) which reads as under: 2 “No. Home(A) B(2)-32/05-Part Government of Himachal Pradesh, “Home Department” From The Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla -171 002 Dated Shimla -171002 the 2-1-2006 Subject: Regarding employment on compassionate grounds- Case of Shri Mohender Singh S/o late ASI Ludermani. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.P-II(3)/ Compassionate/Mohender/05-48247-A dated 27-10-2005 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter has been considered and rejected by the Government. The original documents regarding employment in r/o the applicant so received are returned herewith. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” 3. The order evidently is cryptic and unreasoned. It needs to be set aside on this ground alone. That apart, respondents in similarly situated circumstances have also given employment to Sh. Kailash Guleria, ward of Sh. Roop Singh Guleria, under the very same prevalent scheme framed by the respondents, under which petitioner is also claiming benefits. 4. Further the Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 289 has held as under:- “……….The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one 3 gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules.” 5. In this view of the matter, stand now taken by the respondents in the affidavit that since petitioner has received retiral benefits, and as such is not eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, is untenable in law. 6. As such, Annexure A-2 is quashed with a direction to respondent No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate basis, in accordance with the scheme prevalent at the time of receipt of the petitioner’s application. While taking such decision, respondents shall take into account the decision rendered by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and also the other prevailing circumstances in favour of the petitioner. Decision be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. 7. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 19, 2011 (rana)