IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7969 of 2008. Decided on: 12.05.2009. Shri Amit Kumar. … … Petitioner. Versus The Secretary (Local Self and Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate vice counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The father of the petitioner died on 21st March, 1993 while working as Sanitary Supervisor in Municipal Corporation, Shimla. It appears that the mother of the petitioner has been seeking employment on compassionate basis. The representation made by her was rejected by the competent authority on 1st November, 2000. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Mr. Jaswal has drawn the attention of the Court to the instructions/guidelines issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and also adopted by the Municipal Corporation for making compassionate appointments to the dependents of a Government servant who dies in harness. He has drawn the attention of the Court to sub-clause (c) of clause 5 of Annexure A-9. A bare perusal of the instructions reveals that in case any member of the family is already in Government service or in the employment of Autonomous bodies/ Boards/Corporations etc., the compassionate appointment cannot be provided. It has come in the pleadings that the brother of the petitioner is already engaged in H.P.S.E.B. The compassionate appointment is provided to mitigate the hardship being faced by the family of a Government servant immediately after the death of such Government servant. In this case, the father of the petitioner has died on 21st March, 1993. The brother of the petitioner is already engaged in H.P.S.E.B. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner cannot be directed to be considered for compassionate appointment. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & others vs. Shiv Karampal Sahu, 2009 (6) SCALE 261 have held that appointment on compassionate grounds must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have further held that such schemes cannot be given an expansive meaning as the constitutional scheme envisages that all persons who are entitled to be considered for appointment would be eligible for being considered therefore. Any policy - 3 - decision for appointment on compassionate ground must, receive a strict construction. Their Lordships have held as under (para 9):- “The scheme for grant of monetory compensation to the dependents of the deceased or injured who are affected in any kind of terrorist/virulent/communal attack must be considered in terms of the stipulations made in the circular letters containing policy decisions. Appointment on compassionate ground, it is trite, must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such schemes cannot be given an expansive meaning as the constitutional scheme envisages that all persons who are entitled to be considered for appointment would be eligible for being considered therefore. Any policy decision for appointment on compassionate ground must, therefore, receive a strict construction.” In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. May 12, 2009 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), J.