IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14008/2008 Decided on:16.11. 2009 ______________________________________________ Hitender Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate Generals. _____________________________________________________ The petitioner’s father died on 2.3.2001. The petitioner submitted an application for considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 22.2.2002. He made another representation, which was rejected on 2.11.2004. He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of original application bearing No.2098/2005. The same was disposed of on 22.12.2005. In sequel to the direction of the learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Administrative Tribunal dated 22.12.2005, the case was decided on 30.1.2006 (Annexure A-8). Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate has vehemently argued that the decision of the State Government not to offer appointment to his client is illegal. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the order dated 30.1.2006. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner’s father died on 2.3.2001. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner’s elder brother is working as Clerk in the Government. It is clearly stipulated in para 5 (c) of the Policy framed by the State Government that in all cases where one or more member of the family are already in Government service, the employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. We have gone through the contents of the order dated 30.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner is speaking order. The plea of the petitioner that his brother has started living separately on the basis of Annexures A-9 and A-10 cannot be accepted. The underlined principle to offer appointment on compassionate grounds is to tide over the hardship faced by the family after the death of the bread earner. In the present case the death has occurred on 2.3.2001 and the elder brother of the petitioner is already in Government service. 3 Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order to costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 16.11. 2009. *awasthi*