IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 7778 of 2008. Decided on: 22.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Hari Krishan … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that father of the petitioner, who was working as Kanungo in the respondent-department, died in harness on 9.2.1999. The applicant and his mother submitted application to the respondent- department for compassionate employment on 19.3.1999. The mother of the petitioner had crossed maximum age limit and as such, she was not entitled for Government service. His elder brother Shri Ravinder Kumar got Government employment on 14.6.1999. This has happened during the consideration of the petitioner’s application seeking employment on compassionate basis. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 27.6.2000. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment vide letter 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 dated 27.6.2000 is not in accordance with law. He then argued that at the time when his client had submitted application, his brother was not in Government employment. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that whole concept of granting compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family immediately after the sad demise of the bread earner. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner’s father had died on 9.2.1999. The application was preferred by the petitioner on 19.3.1999. The petitioner’s brother got employed in the Government job on 14.6.1999. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has argued that the brother of his client had been living separately from family since 1996. The whole some principle of providing appointment on compassionate basis is to mitigate the hardship of the family after the death of bread earner. In the present case, it is true that at the time the petitioner had submitted application for considering his case for compassionate appointment, his elder brother was not in Government employment. However, during the pendency of the application, his elder brother was employed in Government job on 14.6.1999. In these circumstances, the decision of the respondent i.e. Annexure A-1 dated 27.6.2000 cannot be faulted with. The economic status of the family has changed after the employment of his elder brother on 14.6.1999. To seek and get appointment on compassionate basis is not a vested right. The terms and conditions in the scheme framed by the State have to be construed 3 pragmatically. The expression used in 5 (c) is “members of the family”. The petitioner’s brother is integral part of the family as visualized in the scheme. The petitioner’s father died on 9.2.1999. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right and the Court cannot issue any direction after considerable period has elapsed. The family of the petitioner required financial help only in the year 1999. The indigent circumstances prevailing in the year 1999 are over by now. His brother has been gainfully employed in the Government job. The family had survived crises with effect from 1999 till date. The employment in Government is open to all eligible candidates. The appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception. It is to be resorted only when the really indigent circumstances are prevailing and the family may be facing financial crunch. It is true that family gets set back after the death of bread earner. However, the Court cannot take over sympathetic view which may run contrary to the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 22, 2009. (cr)