IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8125 of 2008. Decided on: 30.6.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Jai Lal … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner’s mother, who was working as Peon in the Department of Health at Civil Hospital, Rohru, died on 30.4.1992. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his mother. The application was rejected by the competent authority on 23.8.1993. He filed Original Application No. 519 of 1998 before the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment after the death of his mother. The learned Tribunal disposed of the Original Application on 17.5.2001 by treating the Original Application as representation to the Director, Health Services. The Director rejected the representation on 18.9.2001. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Mr. B.S. Ranjan has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the scheme framed by the respondent-State. He then contended that the case of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that his elder brother Shri Roshan Lal was in Government service. Mr. R.K. Sharma has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy framed by the State Government. He then contended that since the petitioner’s elder brother is already in Government service, he cannot seek employment on compassionate ground. He lastly contended that the petitioner’s mother has died on 30.4.1992 and at this belated stage the appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner on compassionate ground. I have heard the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner’s mother died on 30.4.1992. The case of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected on 23.8.1993. His case was rejected on the ground that his elder brother was already in Government service. It is stipulated in the scheme framed by the State Government that in those cases where a member of the family of the deceased is already in Government service, no other member of the family can be offered appointment on compassionate basis. The wholesome principle for providing compassionate appointment is to tide over the crises immediately after the death of the bread earner. In the present case the petitioner’s mother has died on 30.4.1992. His case cannot be directed to be considered after seventeen years. His elder brother 3 was already in Government service when his case was rejected by the State on 23.8.1993. The order passed by the Director dated 18.9.2001 is self-contained. He has assigned valid reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioner after discussing the various clauses of the scheme. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 30, 2009. (cr)