IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.1049 of 2003 Date of decision: 11.8.2008. Vidya Bhardwaj ....Petitioner -Versus- Union of India and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (For short Tribunal) dated 24.4.2003 whereby the O.A. No.292-HP/2003 filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Briefly stated the admitted facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was working as Senior Field Assistant in SSB, Circle Office Mashobra. Unfortunately, he expired on 9.8.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner being his widow applied for grant of compassionate appointment. It is not disputed that she had applied for the job of a lower Division Clerk. 2 The respondents considered her case and vide order dated 31st August, 1999 offered her appointment as Peon i.e. a class-IV post. The petitioner accepted the said employment and joined as Peon. It appears that in the year 2002 the petitioner made a representation to the Department that she had initially applied for being appointed as a LDC and she should be appointed as such. According to the petitioner Smt.Manju Suri, Surkasha Sood, Vijay Lakshami, Sandeep Bhardwaj and Bhim Singh had been offered jobs as LDC in Group-C category on compassionate grounds whereas her represented was rejected. She made another representation which was also rejected and finally she filed the O.A. By now the law is well settled that no person can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. The entire purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to help the family tide over the adverse circumstances which it faces on the death of the bread earner. The employer is entitled to look into the various factors as to whether the deceased employee has left his family in indigent circumstances or not. It is for the employer to decide what type of post, if any, has to be offered to the kin of the deceased. The main argument of Sh.Neel Kamal Sood is that the petitioner has been discriminated against. According to him, the petitioner has been offered employment as a Peon whereas the others similarly situated were granted class-III employment. We have gone through the O.A. as well as the averments made in the writ petition. Except for stating the names of the persons who have been appointed 3 as LDCs no other facts have been stated as to how the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the aforesaid persons. To make out a case of hostile discrimination it was incumbent upon the petitioner alleging hostile discrimination to plead and prove that persons to whom benefit had been granted are similarly situate to her. In the present case there is not even a murmur as to what were the posts deceased persons whose next of kin were appointed LDC were holding. What were the educational qualifications of the persons appointed have also not been set out. The petitioner has failed to even plead the basic requirements to set up a case of hostile discrimination. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 11, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge