Judgment:
A.S. Anand and; S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Father of the respondent, Shri Dutt Sharma, was working as a Caretaker in the R & I Section at the H.P. Civil Secretariat. He died in harness on 6-10-1994, leaving behind a widow and three sons, besides a daughter. The respondent herein is the third son. The widow Smt Vidya Devi filed an application on 17-11-1994 seeking appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds. She maintained that after the death of her husband, the responsibility of looking after the family had fallen on her, because the elder son Rajinder Kumar was living separately with his wife and children and not supporting her and other children. She requested that the respondent be given employment on compassionate grounds. The request of the widow was, however, turned down repeatedly by the appellants on the ground that since her elder son was already in government service therefore no appointment could be given on compassionate grounds to her other son. That led the respondent to file a writ petition in the High Court. By the impugned order, a Division Bench of the High Court on 21-12-1995, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds within a period of three months. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a special leave petition in this Court in which notice was issued and the operation of the order of High Court was set aside.
4. It is not disputed that the elder brother of the respondent is employed as a Clerk in the Office of the Superintending Engineer (I & PH), Shimla. The submission that he is living separately, would not make any difference as he, on respondents' own showing, separated after the death of his father. Under the policy framed by the Government on 18-1-1990 relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds, it is specifically provided in para 5(c):
“In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in government service or in employment of autonomous bodies/bodies/ boards/corporations etc. of the State/Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. In cases, however, where the widow of the deceased government servant represents or claims that her employed sons/daughters are not supporting her, the request of employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow. Even for allowing compassionate appointment to the widow in such cases the opinion of the department of personnel, and Finance Department should specifically be sought and the matter finally decided by the Council of Ministers.”
5. In the face of this policy decision, the High Court was not justified in issuing a direction to the appellant to grant employment to the respondent on compassionate grounds as his elder brother was already in government service. No right vested in the respondent to claim an appointment on compassionate grounds. If, at all, any claim could have been made, it could only have been made by the widow in accordance with the above policy of the Government for consideration in the light of the policy guidelines dated 18-1-1990. The directions of the High Court to grant employment to the respondent, under the circumstances, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The judgment of the High Court is, accordingly, set aside. This appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.