CWP(T)2966/2008(OA No. 56/1996) 04.03.2009 Present: Mr. Rajneesh Manikatala, vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Add. AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG for the respondents. CWP(T) No. 2966/2008 (OA No.56/1996) The present petition was filed on 23.12.1995 assailing the order dated 29th August, 1995 passed by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, rejecting the petitioner’s representation providing for employment assistance to him. The contents of the letter of rejection are reproduced as under: “Subject:- Regarding providing of employment assistance to Shri Rakesh Kumar son of late Sh. Basant Singh, Driver. Sir, Please refer to your letter No. Agr.B(16)- 7/94 dated 22-8-95, on the subject cited above. In this connection, it is informed that the elder brother of the applicant (Sh. Rakesh Kumar) is already in service and as per policy of the Government, the employment cannot be provided to the applicant. ” The petitioner’s father namely Shri Basant Singh died in harness. The State of Himachal Pradesh came out with the policy known as ‘Appointment of sons/daughters/near relations of a Government servant who dies in harness, leaving his family in immediate need of assistance’. The purpose of the scheme was to render immediate assistance to the family members of a government employee who died in harness. Since the petitioner’s -2- brother was employed with the State Government consequently the benefits of the scheme could not have been extended to the petitioner. The scheme itself clarified that the employment assistance on compassionate ground would be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or unmarried daughter subject, however, if one or more members of the family are not already in government service or in employment of Autonomous bodies/ Boards/Corporations etc., of the State/Central Government. An effort has been made to show from Annexure-A3 that the brother of the applicant was staying separately from the deceased employee as also the present petitioner. In my view this fact would have no bearing in the non-eligibility of the applicant for consideration under the scheme. It is pertinent to point out that even the said Subhash Chand has given an affidavit Annexure-A9 from which it is clear that the relation between the parties are not strained. What ever may be the relation between the parties the exemption clause is absolutely clear and hence the benefits of the said scheme could not have been afforded to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 4, 2009 (Sanjay Karol), (PK) Judge.