IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14469 of 2008 Date of Decision : 09.12.2011. Ashwani Kumar, son of late Shri Milap Chand, resident of Village and Post Office Majherna, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. The Director of Primary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. 4. The Block Primary Education Officer, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the petitioner : Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the letter dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure/A-4) issued by the respondent No.3, conveying the rejection of the claim of the applicant, for his appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds, may kindly be quashed and the decision of the 1 Whether Reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents in rejecting such claim of the applicant may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and appoint the applicant as Clerk on compassionate grounds w.e.f. the date the applicant applied for his appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds, alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. Annexure A-4 is the letter dated 21st March, 2006 conveying the rejection of petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate basis. 3. Respondents in their reply have clarified that application was rejected for the reasons that retiral/ pensionary benefits were taken into account while computing income of the family. 4. This in my considered view is not permissible in law. The Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (2005) 10 SCC 289 has held as under:- “The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules.“ 5. Also a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kumari Savita Sharma Versus State of H.P. and others, CWP(T) No.12149 of 2008 (copy 3 of which is taken on record), in similar circumstances has quashed the order of rejection of request for appointment on compassionate basis. 6. Consequently, Annexure A-4 is quashed. Respondents are directed to examine the petitioner’s application in accordance with the rules/guidelines/instructions prevalent at the time of presentation of the same. Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 7. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. 9th December, 2011 (Sanjay Karol), k.sharma Judge