IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6030 of 2010. Decided on: 1.3.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 12 (A):- “12 (A). This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to offer appointment to the petitioner as forest guard on compassionate grounds in view of Office Regt. Memo No. B.IX-27/147 dated 4.4.2009 whereby the case of the petitioner has been recommended by the Conservator of Forest Dharmahsla for aproval.” 2. The respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 1 to 3 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. That Sh. Rattan Chand was working as Forest Worker in the Forest Department and died while in service on 17.10.2007. Sh. Sanjay Kumar s/o late Sh. Rattan Chand applied for the post of Forest Guard in the Forest Department on compassionate grounds. On receipt of the application of the petitioner, respondent No.4 i.e. D.F.O. Palampur has sent the complete case to respondent No.3 vide his office letter No. 424/CF dated 19.5.2008 copy annexed as Annexure R-1. The respondent No.3 i.e. C.F. Dharamshala conducted and interviewed on dated 2.4.2009 and the result 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 thereof was sent to respondent No.2 i.e. Pr.CCF, HP vide letter No. B.H.27/147 dated 4.4.2009 with his recommendations copy annexed as Annexure R-H. 2. That the respondent No.2 i.e. Pr.CCF, HP examined the case of Sh. Sanjay Kumar s/o late Sh. Rattan Chand, Forest Worker for providing employment on compassionate grounds in detail in consultation with Administrative Department. Since the Finance Department is competent to approve the employment on compassionate grounds to the kith and kin of the deceased and there are considerable 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. 3. That the Govt. of H.P. has formulated a policy vide letter No. PER (AP-II)(4)-4/89 dated 18.1.1990 copy annexed Annexure R-III of appointment on compassionate ground in respect of dependent of the deceased but in para-1 of the policy it has been made clear that the employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of Govt. servant who dies 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 the deceased Govt. servant is left in the indigent circumstances regarding requiring immediate means of assistance. The concerned Administrative Department would satisfy themselves about the indigent circumstances 3 of the family before making the appointment on compassionate grounds. The State Govt. further clarified that the Finance Department is considering those cases for providing employment on compassionate grounds where the applicant is widow and those cases where both parents of the applicant are not alive. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R- IV. In view of the position explained above the CWP filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 3. Some undisputed facts may be noticed first. The father of the petitioner late Shri Rattan Chand, who was in the employment of the respondent-Department as a Forest Worker since the year 1999 had died during harness on 17.10.2007 leaving behind his wife and two sons, the petitioner Sanjay Kumar being the elder. 4. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner applied for grant of employment in the respondent-Department on compassionate grounds in terms of the policy in that regard issued vide office memo dated 18.1.1990, a copy of which has been annexed by the respondents with their reply and forms part of Annexure R-1. His case along with requisite documents was referred by respondent No.3-Conservator of Forests, Dharamshala Circle to respondent No.2-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 1.7.2008, Annexure P-3. Consequently, he was called for interview for the post of Forest Guard under the aforesaid scheme vide letter dated 31.10.2008, Annexure P-4. He was again called vide letter dated 27.3.2009, Annexure P-9. However, strangely enough thereafter respondent No.3 sent communication dated 6.10.2009, Annexure P-6, to respondent No.4 with a direction that “no case shall be submitted unless desired by the Pr.CCF, hence the cases received vide 4 memo under reference in original alongwith its enclosures is (sic) returned herewith. You are, therefore, requested not to send such cases in future till further orders received from the higher office”. As per the latest communication dated 11.2.2010, Annexure P-7 sent by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4, it is stated as under:- “In this communication, it is intimated that the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar s/o late Shri Rattan Chand, village Kothi, P.O. Pahra, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra (HP) for the post of Forest Guard stand sent to Pr.CCP, HP, Shimla after conducting the interview under died in harness scheme vide this office Regd. Memo. No. B.IX-27/147 dated 4.4.2009. Approval of the same is awaited. Hence, enclosures received with your memo under reference is returned herewith in original.” 5. Thus, in essence the case of the petitioner for grant of employment on compassionate grounds is pending consideration with respondent No.2. 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 5 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. 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. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. March 1, 2011. (cr)