IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1209 of 2001 Reserved on: 06.08.2008 Date of decision: 14.08.2008 Ganga Dhar … Petitioner Versus Secretary(Forest) & Anr. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per V.K. Ahuja, J. : This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in Civil Review No. 2/97, dated 2.8.2001, vide which the review petition was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that father of the petitioner late Duni Chand was employed as Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. He died on 24.6.1991 while in service. The petitioner applied for appointment as Clerk in the Forest Department on compassionate grounds but the application was rejected by respondent No. 1 on the ground that one of the sons of late deceased Duni Chand 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 i.e. namely Om Prakash was already working as Forest Guard and as such, the application of the petitioner was rejected on 18.9.1993. The petitioner filed Original Application before the learned Tribunal. Reply was filed by the respondents and the said Original Application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 10.1.1997. A review petition was also filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, which as per the impugned order dated 2.8.2001 dismissed the same. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the learned Tribunal had only considered one question that one of the brothers of the petitioner was already serving the State Government as Forest Guard and, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds. It was submitted that this could not have been taken as the only ground of rejection and since other grounds were not considered by the learned Tribunal i.e. financial position of the family and, therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. We have gone through the original order passed by the learned Tribunal on 10.1.1997. A perusal of the same shows that it was observed by the learned Tribunal that the family received a sum of Rs.88,680/- as GPF balance, Group Insurance amount etc. But since the deceased had taken loans amounting to Rs.79,698/-, therefore, the family got a net amount of Rs.8,981/-. It was also observed that the family is receiving pension worth Rs.900/- per month and as such, the family is not living in indigent circumstances requiring financial assistance. It was also observed that the family has some cultivated 3 land and, therefore, the petitioner was held not entitled to get the job on compassionate grounds. The fact that one of the brothers of the petitioner was in service was also observed by the learned Tribunal though it was alleged that he has been living separately for a long time during the life time of the deceased. After the dismissal of the application, the petitioner again applied to the learned Tribunal for review of the order placing reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 326/1992, decided on 4.1.1993. In that case, the question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court that one of the sons of the deceased was already in service but he has been living separately since the time the deceased was alive which fact found support from the certificate of Pradhan, affidavit of the widow and other evidence. The learned Tribunal considered this decision and observed that they had already held that the family was receiving pension worth Rs.900/- per month, was having some cultivated land and, therefore, the family was not living in indigent circumstances needing employment. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed. It is true that even in case one of the brothers of the petitioner was in service, it cannot be the only ground to reject the application. The main circumstance which is required to be considered is that if the family is living in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence and in such circumstances, the application has to be considered by the appointing authority. Therefore, the main consideration has to be if the family was living in indigent circumstances requiring immediate financial help. We may make a reference to a decision of the Apex Court which is relevant for the present discussion. In Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 265, it 4 was held by the Apex Court that retrial benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee, held to be considered including the amount received under various heads which are required to be taken into account while determining the financial status and necessity of compassionate appointment. The scheme in regard to appointment on compassionate grounds is on the file of the Court and the relevant portion of the policy reads as under:- “i) Policy:- The employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of Govt. servants who die while in service is not to be provided as a matter of right. It should be given only in deserving cases, where the family of deceased Govt. servant is left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The concerned Administrative Departments would satisfy themselves about the indigent circumstances of the family before appointment on compassionate grounds is made.” A Division Bench of this Court in Sachin Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors., (CWP No. 279 of 2006), while considering the question in regard to appointment on compassionate grounds vide its decision dated 11.4.2007, had referred to the policy and also after referring to the decision of the Apex Court, had held that the respondents have considered all the relevant criteria and have found that the petitioner is not covered under the scheme for the grant of compassionate appointment. In coming to this conclusion, the Division Bench had observed while quoting from the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Somvir Singh, JT 2007(3) SC 398, that the following factors are required to be taken into consideration in deciding such application: 5 (a) Family pension (b) Gratuity amount received © Employee’s/Employer’s contribution to Provident Fund (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund (e) Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the deceased employee (f) Income for family from other sources (g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. It is, therefore, clear that in case the respondents have taken into consideration all these facts in deciding as to whether the family needs immediate financial assistance or not, the order passed cannot be challenged if they have come to the conclusion that the family does not need immediate financial assistance. In that case, the respondents had considered all the relevant criteria and had found that the petitioner is not covered under the scheme for grant of compassionate policy. The only question left for consideration is as to whether the respondents had considered all the above factors or only the question that one of the members of the family was already in employment. The original order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner was not placed on record by the respondents to show as to whether the application was rejected solely on the ground that one of the members of the family was already in employment and as to whether other factors i.e. the family pension and other benefits received by the deceased’s family were considered or not by the respondents in rejecting the application. At the instance of the Court, the respondents had produced the register maintained by the State Government in regard 6 to the persons who died in harness and the cases of employment on compassionate ground. A perusal of the register where the case of the petitioner was considered shows that a reference was made to the directions of the Government issued on 18.1.1990, which reads as under: “The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. servant to father, mother, brother and unmarried Sister).” A further perusal of these directions shows that thereafter, a reference was also made to the other instructions issued, which reads as under: “In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in Government service or in employment of Autonomous bodies/Boards/Corporations etc., of the State/Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family.” It is, therefore, clear that in view of the latest instructions issued by the State Government that in case one of the members of the family is already in service, no employment should be provided to the second or third member of the family. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was rejected. We would have sent the file to the State Government for reconsideration in case the case of the petitioner was only considered on the ground that the petitioner’s brother was already in employment as per the rules prevalent at that time, but a perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal shows that the other factors were also considered in regard to financial assistance received by the family and the family pension, which they were receiving and, 7 therefore, the learned Tribunal had given a finding of fact that the case calls for no interference by it. It is, therefore, clear that keeping in view the instructions issued, the case of the petitioner was not considered and after lapse of so many years, we do not think it fit to send the case of the petitioner to the State Government for reconsideration, particularly, in view of the other factors, which has been brought to the notice of the Court during the hearing. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the petitioner was earlier given employment on daily wage basis and now he has been regularly employed as per the Office Memorandum, dated 7.8.2007, and the petitioner had also submitted his joining report accordingly on 5.9.2007. Keeping in view all the facts mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for an interference by this Court and the petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly dismissed. However, there are no orders as to costs. (Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 14, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS/Tilak) Judge 8