IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 13784 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 13.6.2011 Date of decision: 14.6.2011 Sanjay Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-4 dated 28.4.2005 rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner Sh.Hoshiar Singh had served as Chowkidar, Department of Education, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. He died on 2.10.2002 while in service. The legal heirs of deceased Sh. Hoshiar Singh are his widow, two sons and three daughters. All the three daughters of the deceased are married and living separately. Sh. Ramesh Chand brother of the petitioner is employed with SSB. Sh. Ramesh Chand is married having two children and lives separately. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 3. It has been alleged that subsequent to the death of the father of the petitioner the family of the deceased primarily consisted of his widow namely Smt. Asha Devi and the petitioner, who were dependent on the deceased. There existed no other source of income. The petitioner is matriculate and is unemployed. 4. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment. The family of the deceased is living in indigent conditions. The Principal of the school where the deceased was working has also observed that the family of the deceased requires immediate help and assistance. The petitioner had submitted all documents in support of his claim for compassionate appointment. The total income of the family of the deceased was assessed at ` 41,500/- mainly from the income of the deceased. The case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on 28.4.2005. The order dated 28.4.2005 is the result of non application of mind on the part of the concerned authority. No reasons have been given in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. On these facts, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.4.2005 and appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds. 5. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been stated that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected on examination of all relevant documents. The legal heirs of deceased are two sons, three married daughters and one wife. The income certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Dehra reveals 3 that the annual income from all sources of the dependants of the deceased comes to ` 41,517/- which is sufficient for the subsistence of the petitioner and his mother. The compassionate appointment can be offered only when the family of the deceased is living in indigent circumstances. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Aim of compassionate policy is provided in Chapter 17.1.2 of Hand Book on Personnel Matters , Vol-1 (Second Edition), Government of Himachal Pradesh, which is as follows:- “Most of the Government servants and their families are dependent on the salary of the concerned Government servants. For such cases, sudden death of the only earning member of the family leaves the family in indigent circumstances and in need of immediate means of subsistence. It is only in such compassionate and emergent cases that employment assistance is envisaged to be provided. The financial position of the family of the deceased Government servant is the main consideration for providing this assistance and the financial position of the family is to be thoroughly scrutinized with respect to the movable and immovable property and all sums paid to the family by the Government/Insurance Company etc.” Sh. Hoshiar Singh father of the petitioner died on 2.10.2002. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to show that the family of Sh. Hoshiar Singh in the year 2002 consisted of Sh.Hoshiar Singh, his wife and petitioner only. Annexure A-1 is the copy of family register showing separate family of Sh. Ramesh Chand. 4 Annexure A-1 was issued on 21.6.2005, hence no help can be taken by the petitioner from Annexure A-1. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to serial No.4 Part-II of Annexure A-3 and has submitted that the Principal of the school where the deceased had served had also stated that the family of the deceased is having no source of income and requires immediate need of assistance. Even though, word ‘no’ is not very clear against serial No. 4 of Part-II of Annexure A-3 but still simply on the basis of recommendation of the Principal, it cannot be said that as per policy of the Government, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. 8. The question is regarding the income of the family at the time of death of Sh. Hoshiar Singh. Annexure A-3 does not reveal what was the income of the family at the time of death of Sh. Hoshiar Singh. The income certificate dated 16.2.2004 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Dehra is to the effect that the total income of the family consisting of Smt. Asha Devi and petitioner is ` 41,517/- per annum from pension and agriculture. In the income certificate only the names of Smt. Asha Devi, widow and petitioner (son) of the deceased have been shown. The name of Sh. Ramesh Chand another son of deceased Sh. Hoshiar Singh has not been included in the income certificate dated 16.2.2004. No reasons have been given in the income certificate why the name of Sh. Ramesh Chand has not been included in the income certificate. 5 9. The legal heir certificate of Sh. Hoshiar Singh is in favour of Smt. Asha Devi, Sh. Ramesh Chand and petitioner alongwith three daughters. Sh. Ramesh Chand brother of the petitioner in his affidavit dated 28.10.2003 has stated that he has no objection if the petitioner is provided employment on compassionate grounds. However, Sh. Ramesh Chand in the affidavit has not stated that he was not the member of family of Sh. Hoshiar Singh, his father. 10. The petitioner while presenting his case for compassionate appointment has totally excluded the income of his brother, who is admittedly serving in SSB. The petitioner in his affidavit dated 16.1.2003 placed on the file has also not stated that Sh. Ramesh Chand was not the member of the family of Sh. Hoshiar Singh at the time of his death. The petitioner having realized that the income of the family at the time of death of Sh.Hoshiar Singh is sufficient to decline him appointment on compassionate grounds, therefore, lateron he projected the case that Sh. Ramesh Chand his brother had a separate family even during the life time of his father, which he has miserably failed to establish. 11. The financial condition of the family is to be considered at the time of death of the employee. At the time of death of Sh. Hoshiar Singh even after excluding the income of Sh. Ramesh Chand, the petitioner and his mother were having income ` 41,517/- per annum. The Government declined to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the family of late Sh. Hoshiar Singh is not in indigent circumstances. It cannot be said 6 that the view taken by the Government does not emerge from the total facts and circumstances of the case. The compassionate appointment is meant for actual needy dependants of the deceased employee and not for those who have already sufficient income to support themselves. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for the relief prayed. 12. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), June 14, 2011 Judge. (GR)