IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9131 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Chaman Lal. .....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. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That the letters dated 29.03.2001 (Annexure/A-2) and 24.11.2001 (Annexure/A-3) issued by the respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the letters dated 26.3.2001 and 12.11.2001 issued by the respondent No. 3, may kindly be quashed and the respondents may please be directed to consider and appoint the applicant against a Class IV post of Peon/Chowkidar on compassionate ground w.e.f. the date the applicant applied for the compassionate appointment, alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(iii-iv) and (v-ix)on merits: “6(iii-iv) That in reply to these paras it is respectfully submitted that the State of Himachal Pradesh has formulated a policy to those Government servants who dies while in service that one of the family member of the deceased family will be given appointment on compassionate grounds to meet out the daily needs of the family. In the instant case the applicant can not be offered appointment on compassionate basis because the two brothers of the applicant's family is already in government service. The applicant has no right to claim Government service when his elder brothers are already in a earning position. The policy specifically clears that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... where one family member of the deceased family is in government service in that event the other family member can not be given appointment on compassionate grounds. (v-ix) That in reply to this para it is submitted that the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was examined by the replying respondent and it was found that the applicant is not covered for employment under the policy of the State government, hence, his case was rejected. The applicant is not entitled for appointment under the provision of the policy and he has no right to claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. Be it further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Jafari Devi as specifically ruled that the compassionate appointment can not be claimed as a matter of right and it should only be given where the respondent department feel that the case is of the nature that the family of the deceased are in a urgent need for employment. In the instant case the applicant is not covered under the policy framed for the employment on compassionate grounds as the policy does not allow the second member of the family to be given employment when the one member of the family is in government service. Therefore, in view of the submissions made hereinabove the applicant has no reasons to maintain the present original applicant and the same is liable to be dismissed.” 3. Rejoinder, refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 4. It is manifest that the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, pursuant to the death of his father, late Shri Duni chand, who had died during harness while in the employment of the respondent-department as Lab Attendant, has been declined mainly on the ground that his two brothers are already in government service. However, according to the petitioner, both his elder brothers, who are in government employment, were living separately even during the lifetime of their ...3... father, late Shri Duni Chand. Thus, in essence, it is submitted that the petitioner and his mother were solely dependant upon the earnings of the deceased and owing to his death they have been rendered without any succour. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1 within one month from today, who shall consider the same sympathetically and take a final decision in the matter within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. In view of the above the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st April, 2011 (virender)