Back
2002 Supreme(J&K) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
R.C. Gandhi, J.
Abid Bashir Tayubi - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 1786/2001
Decided On : 09 October, 2002
Advocate For Appellant: G.A. Lone
Advocate For Appellant: Altaf Haqani
Advocate For Appellant: Shabnam Lone
Advocate For Appellant: M.S. Reshi
Advocate For Appellant: M.Y. Lone
Advocate For Appellant: G.Q. Bhat
Advocate For Appellant: A. Andrabi
Advocate For Respondent: M.I. Qadiri
Advocate For Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain Attar
Advocate For Respondent: J.A. Kawoosa
Advocate For Appellant: A.H. Kakru
Advocate For Appellant: A.M. Dar
Advocate For Appellant: H.I. Hussain
Advocate For Appellant: A.H. Furahi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for filing applications for compassionate appointment within six months of the employee's death, the limitations on claiming appointments to higher posts, and the discretionary powers of the government in making such appointments.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Government Employees - SRO 43 of 1994 - Rule 2, Rule 3 - The judgment discusses the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994 and the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment. It highlights the requirement for filing applications within six months of the employee's death, the limitations on claiming appointments to higher posts, and the rejection of belated claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions involve common questions of facts and law related to seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with SRO 43 of 1994. The petitioners are family members of deceased government employees and seek appointments based on their eligibility and dependency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that petitioners who filed their applications for appointment on compassionate grounds after six months from the date of death of the government servant are not entitled to claim such appointments. The court also held that the claim for appointment against higher posts based on higher qualifications is not sustainable, and seeking parity in appointments made in identical circumstances is not valid.
Issues: 1. Entitlement of petitioners who filed applications beyond six months. 2. Consideration of minors at the time of death in harness of their relation for appointment. 3. Claim for appointments to higher posts based on higher qualifications. 4. Claim for parity in appointments made in identical circumstances. 5. Validity of rejection of belated and time-barred claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for filing applications within six months and the limitations on claiming appointments to higher posts and seeking parity in appointments. It also highlighted the object of compassionate employment to alleviate financial distress and the discretionary powers of the government in making appointments to higher posts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions where claims were belated and/or not sustainable. It directed the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners who filed their claims within six months and offer them appointments within two months, adhering to the rules and the observations made in the judgment.
2. In SWP No. 1786/2001 the petitioner seeks his appointment on compassionate grounds as sub-Inspector of police on the strength of his academic qualifications, as his relation died in cross-firing, relating to militancy.
In SWP No. 904/2000 relation of the petitioner died in 1988 and he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 1999. His request has been rejected vide order dated 9th October, 1999 by Chief Engineer, PHE on the ground of being belated and time barred.
In SWP No. 2069/99 the petitioner seeks to quash order dated 13th November, 1999 which has been passed by the respondents in terms of the direction issued by the court in SWP No. 1335/97 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in that petition for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected on the ground that the relation died in 1987 when the petitioner was a minor and attained the majority on 1st April, 1994. He had applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds in June, 1994. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected being time barred by five years.
In SWP No. 943 of 2002 brother of the deceased got employment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, widow of the deceased, seeks to quash that appointment and her appointment in substitution.
In SWP No. 1716/2000 the petitioner has been appointed on a class IV post on probation. He seeks his appointment on substantive basis.
In SWP No. 2002/2000 the petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Engineering. He seeks his appointment on compassionate grounds as Junior Engineer on the analogy of one Aijaz Rashid appointed as Junior Engineer in similar circumstances.
In SWP No. 907/2002 father of the petitioner died in harness on 3rd September, 1987. The petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds on 10th November, 1994. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents as being time barred. His status as adopted son is also disputed.
In SWP No. 815/2002 the petitioner has been appointed as Laboratory Bearer on compassionate grounds. He seeks his appointment as Laboratory Assistant on the analogy of similar appointments stated to have been made by the respondents.
3. In all other petitions, the petitioners are either the son, daughter or widow of Government employee who have died in harness. Petitioners seek appointment on compassionate grounds, on the plea of being eligible and entitled to such appointment in terms of the family of the deceased employee and being dependent on him.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of these petitions.
5. Persons seeking appointment on compassionate grounds shall be eligible in terms of Rule 2 of SRO 43 of 1994, which reads as under:
"2. Application of Rules: These rules shall apply to the compassionate appointment of a person who is a family member of:
(i) a Government employee who dies in harness other than due to militancy related action;
(ii) a Government employee who dies as a result of militancy related action and is not involved in militancy related activities;
(iii) a civilian who dies as a result of militancy related action not involved in militancy related activities and total income of the family from all sources does not exceed Rs. 3,500/- per month as assessed by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of an assistant Commissioner;
(iv) a permanent resident Junior Commissioned Officer or non- Commissioned officer of the armed force or an officer of equivalent rank of the para military force who is killed in action connected with law and other duties within the State of Jammu and Kashmir or as a result of enem
