IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8482/2008 Reserved on: 6.12.2010 Decided on: 23.12. 2010 _____________________________________________ Sanjay Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1no For the petitioner : Mr. I.D. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.R. Sahrma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner’s father died in harness. He submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was rejected by the competent authority. 2. Mr. I.D. Bali, Sr. Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate basis after the death of his father. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner’s brother is already in Government service and the family is not living in indigent circumstances. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The underlined principle for offering appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over the economic crises immediately after the death of the bread earner. In the instant case, the bread earner has died on 25.1.2001. Petitioner’s family owned 4-5 bighas of land. It is fetching income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The family of the petitioner has received the following benefits: i) Ex-gratia Rs. 39,400/- ii) Gratuity Rs. 3,50,000/- iii) G.P.F. Rs. 82,368/- iv) Leave encashment Rs. 1,10,110/- 6. The family could easily get interest about 4-5 thousand per month on the amounts released to the family on account of retiral benefits. Petitioner’s brother is already in Government service. Mr. I.D. Bali has strenuously argued that he is living separately. It may be true that the 3 petitioner’s brother is living separately but in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the family cannot be treated to be living in indigent circumstances. The compassionate appointment is an exception and not a general rule. The indigent circumstances which may be existed at the time of the death of bread earner are no more in existence as of today. The judgment cited by Mr. I.D. Bali is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since in this case the family has already been paid more than Rs. Five lakhs towards retiral benefits. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 23.12. 2010 *awasthi*