AVINASH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the respondents denying him compassionate appointment. It is undisputed before us that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment/assistance in accordance with law. There is no dispute that petitioner's father died in harness in the year 2006. On the application submitted by the petitioner, two orders Annexures P-15 and P-16 dated 20.10.2012 and 22.11.2012 were issued. Annexure P-15 is a communication addressed to the Deputy Director of Higher Education in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as it does not meet the financial criteria so fixed by the Government. Annexure P-16 is a communication addressed to the petitioner by Director of Higher Education stating that by the communication dated 27.7.2012 it has been conveyed that his family income does not meet the financial criteria applicable.

(2.) In reply, the respondents have strongly opposed the grant of relief on the ground that the family income of the petitioner's family is Rs. 96,000/- as pleaded by the respondents, which seems sufficient to meet the needs of the family and is not within the limit of Rs. 50,000/- as fixed.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted that the father of the petitioner was serving as a P.E.T., who died on 13.9.2006 and that the petitioner being the elder son immediately applied for compassionate appointment.