IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11465 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That the respondents may please be directed to provide employment to the applicant being eligible and dependant of late Sh. Noudha Ram on compassionate grounds under the “kith and Kin Policy” of the government.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the following stand has been taken vide para 3 on merits: “In reply to this para of the O.A. it is humbly submitted that one Sh. Naudha Ram while working in Municipal Council, Dharamshala expired on 15.11.1998 after rendering 12 years 11 months regular service in the Municipal Council, Dharamshala, leaving behind his family consisting of following members:- 1. Smt. Ishwari Devi Widow (58 years) 2. Smt. Jagtambe Devi Daughter (40 years) 3. Smt. Santosh Kumari Daughter (38 years) 4. Sh. Parveen Kumar Son (35 years) 5. Sh. Raj Kumar Son (25 years) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... A proposal received from the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Dharamshala regarding appointment assistant to sh. Raj Kumar son of late Shri Naudha Ram on compassionate grounds was examined in view of the policy framed by the Govt. and so circulated vide Memo No. Per(AP-II)F(4)-4/89, dated 18.01.1990. the relevant para 5(c) of the said policy for appointments on compassionate grounds to the dependents of deceased employees reads as under:- “5(c) 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. In cases, however, where the widow of the deceased Government servant represents or claims that her employed sons/daughters are not supporting her, the request of employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow. Even for allowing compassionate appointment to the widow in such cases the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Finance Department should specifically be sought and the matter finally decided by the Council of Ministers.” In view of the above provisions, sh. Raj Kumar, present applicant was not found eligible for appointment assistance after the death of Sh. Naudha Ram, Mali, Municipal Council, Dharamshala because the elder son of late sh. Naudha Ram is already working as regular Beldar in Municipal Council, Dharamshala. The applicant has submitted a certificate to the effect that the elder son of late Sh. Naudha Ram, Mali (who is already in regular service of Municipal Council Dharamshala) lives separately from the other members of the family and the applicant is living with his mother, therefore, he may be considered for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Government for clarification whether Sh. Raj Kumar is eligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds or not vide letter No. UD- H(B)(2)-8/2000-7990, dated 21.06.2002 copy of which is annexed as Annexure: R-2/1 to this reply. The govt. accordingly clarified vide letter No. ULB- B(15)-6/2000, dated 18.10.2002 and informed the replying respondent no. 2 that the case of the applicant is not covered under the compassionate policy as his elder brother is already in Govt. service, ...3... a copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure: R-2/2 to this reply. Accordingly, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Dharamshala i.e. present respondent No. 3 was informed of the above position by the replying respondent No. 2 through letter No. UD-H(B)(2)-8/2000, dated 29.10.2002 a copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-2/3 to this reply. Aggrieved of the above decision of the Govt., Sh. Raj Kumar i.e. the present applicant has filed an O.A. No. (D)-528/2002 before the Hon'ble Tribunal during December, 2002 against his non-appointment on compassionate grounds and the Hon'ble Tribunal has disposed off the said O.A. on 18.12.2002 with the directions to the replying respondent No. 2 to treat it an representation and to decide the same within a period of three months. The respondent No. 2 was further directed to hear the applicant in person before deciding the representation. A copy of the Hon'ble Tribunal orders dated 18.12.2002 is annexed as Annexure R-2/4 to this reply. In compliance of the orders of the hon'ble Tribunal dated 18.12.2002 passed in O.A. No. (D)-528/2002, the applicant was heard personally by the replying respondent No. 2 on 29.1.2002, 20.02.2003, 18.03.2003, 04.04.2003 and 19.04.2003 and his statement was recorded and his all view points heard at length. After treating the said O.A. as representation and after affording necessary opportunities to the applicant, the replying respondent No. 2 passed detailed speaking orders on 19.04.2003 to send the matter for reconsideration of the Govt., a photocopy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure R-2/5 to this reply. In compliance of the above orders dated 19.04.2003, the case of the applicant was sent to the Govt. by replying respondent no. 2 on 27.05.2003 for reconsideration as per Annexure R-2/6, but the State Govt. after having considered the same conveyed its rejection on 09.07.2003 as per Annexure R-2/7 to this reply. Accordingly, the applicant was informed of the govt. decision through respondent No. 3 as per Annexure R-2/8 to this reply. The applicant could not be found eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the policy of the State Govt., hence the request of the applicant was rightly rejected by the govt. Thus nothing wrong has been done to the applicant in the present matter which may call for any intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal at this Stage.” ...4... 3. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 3 is on similar lines as that of respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. Rejoinder, refuting the above stands on behalf of respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before respondent No. 1 by way of appropriate representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st April, 2011 (virender)