IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5829 of 2010. Date of decision: 4.1.2011 Rajinder Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.6.2010 whereby his prayer for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds under the kith and kin policy of the State has been rejected. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner was employed as Driver with the Commandant General Home Guards, Shimla. He unfortunately expired on 16.11.2007 while still in 2 service. In March, 2008, the petitioner applied to the respondent-Department for the grant of compassionate appointment. This application has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Scheme framed by the State Government in this behalf. According to the State, the Finance Department has framed the criteria for the grant of appointment under this Policy. In case the family consists of four or more members then the income of such family should be less than Rs.1 lac per annum for any member of the family to be eligible for appointment under this Scheme. In case there are three members then the income should be Rs.75000/- or less, if two then Rs.50,000/- or less and if only one family member survives then the income should be Rs.25,000/- or less per annum. The Government has laid down a condition that if in a case like the present where the family is deriving income of more than Rs.1 lac per annum then no appointment on compassionate grounds under the kith and kin policy can be made. The income of the family of the petitioner from pension and agriculture 3 has been assessed at Rs.1,38,880/- per annum. Therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the scope of the Scheme and he is not entitled to any relief. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. January 4, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge