IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5126 of 2010 alongwith CWP No. 5127 of 2010. Date of Decision: 9.5.2011. 1. CWP No. 5126 of 2010 Ankush Kumar Versus HP State Forest Department & Ors. 2. CWP No. 5127 of 2010. Raman Kumar Versus HP State Forest Department & Ors. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate (in both the cases) For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG (in both the cases) Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) 1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, since similar questions of law and fact are involved. 2. Both the petitioners seek compassionate appointments in the Forest Department on the ground that their father died in harness. The case of the respondents-department is that in terms of the instructions now issued, only those cases are being considered for grant of compassionate employment where the appellant is the widow; or where in cases both parents have died, then the child is also being considered. 2 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners were found suitable and their names are mentioned in the select list of candidates for grant of compassionate employment on compassionate grounds under the kith and kin policy. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 6030 of 2010, titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 1.3.2011 has decided an identical matter and had given the following directions:- “6………………………..………………………………………….… There is no denying the fact that as per communication dated 4.4.2009, Annexure R-II sent by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, the name of the petitioner finds mention in the select list of candidates interviewed for the post of Forest Guard held by the respondent-Department for grant of employment on compassionate grounds to the kith and kin of those employees who had died in harness. 7. The stand taken by the respondents vide para 2 of the preliminary submissions that since “there are considerable (sic) large number of applicants for compassionate appointment, therefore, Finance Department is considering only those cases for providing employment on compassionate grounds where the applicant is widow and those cases in which both parents of the applicant are not alive. In the instant case since the widow of the deceased is alive hence petitioner cannot be considered for providing employment under this policy as per the policy in vogue in this regard”, is in derogation of the declared policy of the State Government referred to hereinabove, substantive part of clause 2 whereof is as under:- “2) To whom the policy is applicable: The employment assistance of 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 ……” 8. A bare reading of the above portion of clause 2 of the policy would go to show that a son of the deceased employee, if otherwise eligible, is fully covered under the said scheme for grant of employment on compassionate grounds, even in the existence of wife and other children of the deceased employee, in case they have no objection to the grant of such employment. 3 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of employment on compassionate grounds in terms of the aforesaid policy and the observations made hereinabove in this judgment and take a final decision in the matter within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so desired………………………………………………………...……” 5. Since, these cases are also identical, they are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 9th May, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge. 4