JUDGEMENT Mrs. Justice Bakhshish Kaur, Chairman. - Sh. Chet Ram on his appointment as Conductor was deputed or training of Conduct or w.e.f February 24, 1981 by the Assistant Manager Rampur Bushahar vide order dated February 24,1981 as per Annexure P-1. While he was undergoing training on Bus No. HPS 7697, unfortunately, he met with a fatal accident on February 20, 1981 2. Sh. Ramesh Thakur s/o Sh. Chet Ram was only seven days old when his father died. Thus, on attaining age of may ......he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. But his request was declined, therefore, he alongwith his mother Smt Kanta Devi have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming following reliefs:- ("i) That the impugned order dated July 24, 2003, Annexure P-14 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) that the respondent be directed to give appointment to the applicant No.1 or 2 on compassionate ground forthwith in a suitable job vacancy; (iii) That the respondent be directed to pay to the applicants exempolary damages alongwrth the cost of this petition as may be quantified by this Honble Court (iv) That the respondents be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to this case for the perusal of this Tribunal and (v) Any other order which this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts aid circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents". 3. The respondents have admitted the death of Sh. Chet Ram as well as the rejection, of the representation filed by the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. though, it is averred that Sh. Chet Ram was not appointed as Conductor but it is equally admitted that Sh. Chet Ram father of the applicant and husband of applicant No.2 was selected as Conductor in H.R.T.C. He was undergoing pre-engagement training as Conductor from February 24, 1981 to March 2, 1981. He remained on training for only four days With H.R.T.C. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds because the family has been able to subset during this long period of 19 years after the death of Sh. Chet Ram. It is not a fit case for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. We have heard Sh. D.K. Khanna, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Chet Ram. It is not a fit case for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. We have heard Sh. D.K. Khanna, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Naresh Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The case of the applicant is that Sh. Chet Ram had died while he was undergoing training as a Conductor. He was appointed as a Conductor as per Certificate (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Manager, HRTC, Rampur Bushahar which is as under- “Sh. Chet Ram S/o Sh. Jeet Ram, Conductor is hereby deputed for training of conductor w.e.f. 24.2.1981 2.3.1981." 6. Unless Sh. Chet Ram was appointed as a Conductor, he could not be sent for training of Conductor for a specific period It is a admitted fact that on the fateful day, he was on training on Bus No. HPS 7697 which met with an accident on February 28,1981 as averred in para -6(h) of the Original Application. In reply to this para, it is mentioned that the contents of this para are admitted. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that Sh. Chet Ram was not appointed as a Conductor is devoid of merit because the party is bound by the admission made by it Unless it is withdrawn that being not the case. Rather it is averred that under para 6{i) that the father of the applicant was selected as a Conductor in HRTC and he was undergoing training as Conductor, therefore, this argument that Sh. Chet Ram was not their employee, is not available with to them. 7. On the question of offering the appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds, the following acts need to be considered- Out of two applicants, if at all, anyone is entitled for appointment on the aforesaid terms, it is Ramesh Thakur the applicant No. 1 who was minor at the time of his fathers death whereas Smt Kanta Devi w/o Shri Chet Ram is certainly not entitled because at the stage he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. Sh. Ramesh Thakur, was only 7 days old when his father died. His date of birth as per Annexure p-3 is February 21, 1981 whereas Sh. Chet Ram had died on February, 1981 as per Death Certificate (Annexure P-2). Matriculation Certificate issued by the HP. 8. Sh. Ramesh Thakur, was only 7 days old when his father died. His date of birth as per Annexure p-3 is February 21, 1981 whereas Sh. Chet Ram had died on February, 1981 as per Death Certificate (Annexure P-2). Matriculation Certificate issued by the HP. Board of School Education Annexure P-6 and the Senior secondary (10+2) examination Certificate A annexure P-7 also indicate that the date of birth of the applicant was February 21, 1981. 9. The representations made by the applicant from time to time are annexure P-8 dated November 6, 1998, Annexure P-9 dated February 20, 2001 and Annexure P-1G dated March 24, ?003 The request for appointment was finally declined on July 24, 2003 although vide order dated November 26, 1999 (Annexure P-11), he was asked to submit his requisite documents/ Certificates through Regional Manager, Rampur Bushahar. 10. The first representation made by the applicant was Annexure P-8 dated November 6, 1998 wherein he has mentioned that he has attained the age of majority, therefore, request for appointment as Clerk k\ HRTC. on compassionate ground. The appellant in compliance thereof, had submitted the application Annexure P-9 alongwith all relevant documents i.e. copy of the joining cum-deployment for training, of his fathers death certificate and Affidavits etc As per Annexure p-12, the regional Manager, HRTC, Rampur Bushahar addressed to the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla required him to take suitable action in the case of Sh. Ramesh Thakur as he is pressing hard to this office to provide the job under kith and kin policy. 11. The claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate basis was rejected by the Managing Director HRTC vide Annexure p-14 dated July 24, 2003 on the following reasons:- "3. A perusal of the record reveals that late Sh Chet Ram (father of the applicant) was selected as Conductor in HRTC. He was undergoing pre-engagement training as conductor from February 24, 1981 to March 2, 1981. On February 28, 1981 when he was detailed on the job trainings on Bus No. HPS-7697 catering as Rampur Kotagarh, it met with an accident near Bhutti Curve. He worked as trainee in HRTC for only 4 days when he did in the accident without becoming employee of this organisation. On February 28, 1981 when he was detailed on the job trainings on Bus No. HPS-7697 catering as Rampur Kotagarh, it met with an accident near Bhutti Curve. He worked as trainee in HRTC for only 4 days when he did in the accident without becoming employee of this organisation. At the time of accident he was neither a regular employee of HRTC nor daffy wager and as such does not fall within the definition of "Corporation Employee" as defined by the Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel O.M. No. Per (AP-11) F(4) -4/89 dated 18.1.1990. Further the family has been able to subsist during this long period of 21 years after the death of Shri Chet Ram. Therefore, the family cannot be termed to be presently in indigent circumstances which qualifies them to be considered for employment 12. Therefore, the undersigned in consideration of the instructions of the State Government on the subject aid judgment of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 27 of 1998 titled as Chaman Lal Vs. State of HP. and ors. hereby rejects the claim of Shri Ramesh Thakur for employment in HRTC on compassionate grounds under kith and kin policy Of the State Govt. as adopted by the HRTC." 13. It appears that the deceased Sh. Chet Ram was not considered as an employee of the Organization because at that time he was under going training. This fact alone is not sufficient to deny compassionate appointment to the applicant We have already discussed above that the respondents in their reply have admitted that Sh. Chet Ram was selected appointed as a Conductor and he was undergoing I training as a Conductor Unless there was a selection of a candidate as a Conductor, he could not be sent for training nor any stranger would be allowed to remain on training for a particular period and that to while handling the Bus of the Corporation because it is admitted that the time of accident, he was undergoing training in Bus No. HPS-7697 belonging to tie Corporation. 14. The other ground for not accepting the darn of the applicant was that the family had been able to subsist during this king period of 21 years after tie death of Sh. Chet Ram. Therefore, the family cannot be termed to be presently in indigent circumstances which qualifies them to be considered for employment 15. 14. The other ground for not accepting the darn of the applicant was that the family had been able to subsist during this king period of 21 years after tie death of Sh. Chet Ram. Therefore, the family cannot be termed to be presently in indigent circumstances which qualifies them to be considered for employment 15. The applicant does not own immoveable property which is dear from Annexures P-4 and P-5 issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat The respondents have not been able to controvert the plea of the applicant that he does not own immoveable property. None for the applicants family member is in Government service. Thus, the observations that the applicants are not indigent persons otherwise they could not subsist for such a tong period is based on conjectures and surmises. At the time of death of Sh. Chet Ran, Sh. Ramesh Thakur was only 7 days old He had attained majority only in 1999 and the moment he attained majority, he had submitted an application for appointment which fact is dear from the application Annexure P-8 dated November 6, 1998. Annexure P-11 is a letter issued by the Divisional Manager (Admn.) Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla addressed to the Regional Manager, HRTC, Rampur wherein the reference to his application dated November 6, 1999 has been made. 16. As per instructions contained in Hand Book on Personnel Matter Volume-1 para 17.1.15, the time limit for seeking compassionate appointment is as under- "Requests for providing compassionate employment assistance must be made:- (i) Within three years of the death of the Government servant; or (ii) In case the eldest son/unmarried daughter was less than 18 years of age, before at attainment of age of two years by the eldest son/unmarried daughter. No relaxation in the time limit is allowed for entertaining requests for compassionate appointment except in the case of a son/un-married daughter/widow off a deceased Government servant belonging to difficult areas as laid down in the Transfer Policy." 17. Thus, the applicant who had attained the majority in the years, 1999 as per instructions was within his rights to apply for appointment within two years of the date of attaining the age of majority i.e. up to February, 1991. Thus, the applicant who had attained the majority in the years, 1999 as per instructions was within his rights to apply for appointment within two years of the date of attaining the age of majority i.e. up to February, 1991. The application (Annexure P-9) is of dated February 20, 2001 though it was the third application because as earlier to that he had submitted two applications one in the moth of November, 1998 and the other m November, 1999/these dates have been reflected in Annexure P-11 by the respondents) 18. The Managing Director, H.P. Road Transport Corporation while decling he request for appointment (Annexure p-14) has nowhere mentioned that he applicant has not immoveable property, or, that his family got sufficient means of subsistence and not in need of immediate financial help except an observation t hat family had been able to subsist during the long period of 21 years, therefore, they cannot be termed to be as indigent 19. Claim for compassionate appointment has also been reflected by making reference to C.W.P. No. 27/98 “Sh. Chaman Lal Vs. State of HP a Ors." Decided on April 29, 2003. The lads of this case are totally different as it was a case where foe petitioner had attained majority in the year 1989 aid had approached the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds for the first time on April 10, 1997 i.e. after more than eight years of his attaining the majority while the Write petition was filed on December 29, 1997. Thus the sad petitioner having approached the respondent Department after eight years of attaining the majority, was not held en tilted, whereas in the case in hand which stands on different footing as already discussed above applicant immediately approached the authorities concerned for appointment soon after he had attained majority. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, present Original Application is allowed after setting aside impugned order Annexure P-14. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the applicant to which he is already entitled. Needful be done within four months from the dale of the receipt of the copy of order. 21. No order as to costs. -