Kuldeep Kumar vs H.P. Home Guard Association and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Petitioner is aggrieved since his request for compassionate ground has been denied. According to the Petitioner, his father died on 26.7.1999. All steps have been to taken to provide employment and only on account of introduction of the model code, the employment was denied at the relevant time.

However, Learned Senior Additional General, referring to the scheme for compassionate employment under para-v submits that in case one or more members of the family of the deceased are in Government service or in the employment of autonomous bodies etc., employment assistance should not under any circumstances can be provided to the second and third member of the family. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the elder brother of the family had already been separated from the family much prior to the death of the father in 1999. A patwar register would show that he was not the member of the family at the relevant time. Therefore, it is submitted that relevant date for the purpose of defining the family for employment assistance should be the date of death and if from the date of death of the employee, if the family is shown to not to include the members of the family who had already been separated, the members in the family as per register at the time of death of the employee is entitled for consideration. Apparently this aspect has missed the notice of the authorities. Therefore, we are of the view that this matter requires consideration by the Government. Hence the writ petition is disposed of as follows.

In the event of Petitioner filing an appropriate representation within one moth from today, the matter will be duly considered by the second Respondent in accordance with law, with notice to the Petitioner, within another three months. In the process of taking the decision, one decision relied upon by Learned Senior Advocate General in State of H.P. and Another Vs. Jafli Devi (Smt.), and the decision relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd. and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 2007, decided on 18.9.2007 by Hon�ble Supreme Court, will also be taken into consideration.