IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 4498 of 2008 (OA No. 1482 of 1997). Judgement reserved on: 1.7.2009. Date of decision: July 21, 2009. Chuni Ram …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with and Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge.. On transfer of cases from H.P. Administrative Tribunal after its abolition and in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, O.A. No. 1482 of 1997, which was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal, has been registered as CWP(T) No.4498 of 2008 in this court. 2. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking employment on compassionate ground after the death of his brother Tota Ram, who died in harness on 17.9.1996, while working as Frash-cum Mali (Class IV) in the office of Lokayukta. The pleaded case of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… petitioner is that Tota Ram was engaged on daily wage basis on 28.1.1994, but he was regularized on 1.3.1996 as Frash-cum-Mali. Tota Ram died on 17.9.1996 leaving behind the family in indigent circumstances. The petitioner is possessing 5th standard qualification and vide office Memo No. Per(AP-II/F(4)-4/89 dated 18th January, 1990, he is entitled for appointment against Class IV post. 3. The petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate appointment alongwith all documents, wherein it was stated that he was looking after his father, but the department had failed to consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed OA No. 123 of 1997 titled Chuni Ram vs. State and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.1.1997 directed that the application be treated as representation. The Secretary to Lokayukta, H.P. has rejected his representation on 21.3.1997. In these circumstances, the petitioner has assailed order dated 21.3.1997. 4. It has been alleged that other brother of the petitioner namely Tikkam Ram is married and is living separately, who is not supporting the family and even Tikkam Ram has sworn an affidavit to this effect. Khub Chand father of the petitioner has died on 8.3.1997. The petitioner is the only person entitled for compassionate appointment after the death of Tota Ram, as per policy. 5. The petition has been contested by the respondent by filing reply. It has not been denied that Tota Ram Frash-cum-Mali had died on 17.9.1996 and thereafter petitioner being brother of deceased Tota Ram had applied for compassionate appointment. It has been pleaded that as per instructions of the …3… Government when one or more members of the family of the deceased government servant are already in service of the Government or autonomous bodies/ Boards, Corporation under the State or Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third members of the family vide Annexure R-1. Tota Ram was unmarried, his brother Tikkam Ram is already in government service, and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. It has also been pleaded that case of the petitioner was considered in compliance of earlier direction of the Tribunal and rejected on merits. The family is not indigent. It has been denied that Class IV post is lying vacant as the post has already been filled up through direct recruitment and there is no post of Class IV lying vacant. 6. Heard and perused the record. Para 17.1.9 of Hand Book on Personnel Matters Volume-1, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel provides that where one or more members of the family of the deceased government servant are already in service of the government or autonomous bodies/ Boards, Corporation under the State or Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third members of the family. In case, however, where the widow of the deceased government servant represents or claims that her employed sons/ daughters are not supporting her, the request for employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow. Tota Ram was unmarried, therefore, the question of employment assistance to his widow does not arise. Khub Chand …4… father of deceased Tota Ram had died on 8.3.1997. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to give financial help in the shape of employment to the dependant. It has not been specifically pleaded in the petition that petitioner was dependant on Tota Ram. There is no denial of the fact that Tota Ram, Tikkam Ram and Chuni Ram petitioner are the sons of Khub Chand. Tikkam Ram is already in employment, but the case of the petitioner is that Tikkam Ram is living separately. There is nothing on record to indicate that family of Khub Chand and for that matter Tota Ram had a partition. Khub Chand in his affidavit dated 4.1.1997 has nowhere stated that Tikkam Ram is living separately. In certificate Annexure A-6 dated 3.1.1997 Patwari has not stated that Tikkam Ram is living separately. Similar is position of certificate dated 3.1.1997 Annexure A-7 of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chebri. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ration card of Tikam Ram does not show either Khub Chand or petitioner as members of Tikkam Ram’s family. The ration card also does not indicate that Tota Ram was family member of Tikkam Ram. In the ration card, names of only those persons are included who immediately live with the card holder, but that does not mean that the persons who have not been mentioned in the ration card are not members of the family of card holder. In a given situation, one family member may go out for purpose of employment but that does not mean that that family member ceases to be the member of the family. There is nothing on record that Tikkam Ram and petitioner during the life time of Tota Ram were not the members of Khub Ram’s family …5… and thereafter are not the members of the same family. Tikkam Ram was already in government service, therefore, as per instructions contained in para 17.1.9 of Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Volume-1, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of Tota Ram. The representation of the petitioner after the decision dated 22.1.1997 in OA No. 123 of 1997 has been disposed of by the Secretary Lokayukta vide a detailed order dated 21.3.1997, in which the Secretary has recorded a finding that Chuni Ram otherwise is also not an indigent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. July 21, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.