IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9217 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 21, 2011 Chaman Lal s/o Sh. Almoo Ram, Aged 26 years, presently un- employed, R/o V&PO Jharag Chebri, Teh. Jubbal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Forest) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla, H.P. 2. Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests, HP, Shimla, HP. 3. Conservator of Forests, Shimla Forest Circle, Shimla, HP. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru Forest Division, Rohru, Distt. Shimla, HP. Respondents Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents-State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner’s father was working as a Chowkidar. He sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The Government accepted the same. Petitioner, being the son of the employee, sought appointment on compassionate basis in terms of policy framed by Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the State. The same stands rejected on the ground that since family of the employee was found not to be left in indigent circumstances, hence his name could not have been considered for appointment on compassionate basis. 2. In reply respondents have stated that while considering eligibility with regard to the income, retiral benefits of the employee have been taken into account. Now this is totally impermissible in law as has been so held by the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur and another versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 and by this Court in CWP(T) No. 14469 of 2008, titled as Ashwani Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 9.12.2011. 3. As such, the impugned order dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure A-1), rejecting the petitioner’s request is quashed. Respondents are directed to examine the matter afresh and take appropriate action in terms of the policy prevalent at the time of presentation of the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground. Same shall be done in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 21 , 2011 (PK)