IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 14121/2008 Decided on:5.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Surinder Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner’s father died in harness. Petitioner made representation for considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Peon on 6.5.2003. One Ashwani Kumar also lost his father in harness. He was working as a Driver. Aswhani Kumar was offered appointment as a Clerk. Petitioner made representation that his case may be considered for appointment to the post of Class-III. Case of the petitioner has not been 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 considered at par with Mr. Ashwani Kumar only on the ground that he has already accepted the Class-IV post. There is no merit in this contention. Respondent-State was directed to file affidavit to see comparison of petitioner’s case vis-à-vis the case of Ashwani Kumar. Affidavit has been filed. The income of the family of petitioner was Rs. 8000/- per annum, family pension was Rs. 1798/- per month and the family was also owning land of 22 bighas and a house, however, seven family members were dependent on late Shri Jai Kishan. So far as Ashwani Kumar is concerned, his family income was Rs. 20,000/- per annum, family pension was Rs. 1800/- per month and four members were dependent on late Shri Shayam Lal, father of Ashwani Kumar at the time of his death. A comparison given in the affidavit makes it clear that the case of the petitioner was on better footing for appointment on compassionate grounds as a Clerk vis-à-vis Ashwani Kumar. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has accepted Class- IV post, he is estopped from agitating the same at this stage. There cannot be any estoppel against any fundamental/legal right. Petitioner had no alternative except to accept the Class-IV post after the demise of his father. He subsequently made representation for considering his case to Class-III post when he came to know that Ashwani Kumar, whose father also died in harness, has been offered Class-III post. 3 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Class-III post at par with Sh. Ashwani Kumar on compassionate grounds. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 5.7.2010 *awasthi*