Back
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
Tariq Ahmad Wani -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
SWP No. 661/2009
Decided On : 28-02-2011
Jammu & Kashmir - Compassionate Appointment - Rules of 1994 - Rule 2, SRO 211 of 1995 - The court interpreted the Rules of 1994 and SRO 211 of 1995 to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the family members of a person who dies in militancy related action outside the state of Jammu and Kashmir, provided they satisfy other statutory requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1994 after the death of a family member in a bomb explosion outside Jammu and Kashmir. The claim was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the accident took place outside the state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1994 cannot be restricted to the territories of Jammu and Kashmir alone, and should be available to the families of those who die beyond the state's boundaries, provided they satisfy other statutory requirements.
Issues: The main issue was whether the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1994 could be extended to the family members of a person who dies in militancy related action outside the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of compassionate appointment should not be restricted to the territories of Jammu and Kashmir alone, and should be available to the families of those who die beyond the state's boundaries, provided they satisfy other statutory requirements.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were commanded to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the Rules of 1994.
2. The life of one Manzoor Ahmed Wani S/o Gh. Qadir Wani R/o Yamrach Tehsil Kulgam (for short the deceased), was brought to an abrupt end due to bomb explosion on 3rd of March 2000, near Surhind District Fatehgarh Punjab, when he was traveling from Jammu to Delhi. Claim was made by the petitioner for being considered for being appointed in accordance with the mandate of Rules 1994.
3. The claim was initiated immediately after the death of deceased. Documents placed on record show that Naib Tehsildar sent a report to the Tehsildar Kulgam on 26th of July 2000, giving details about the family strength of petitioner and the monthly earnings etc. The petitioner has also placed on writ record order No. DCP/N/CA/02/170-223 dated 23rd No. 2002, and it is pleaded in the writ petition that appointment on compassionate grounds was offered to Zamrooda Akhter as one Aijaz Palla died in similar circumstances, but the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.
4. On notice issued in this case, reply affidavit has been filed by respondents. The main ground taken in the reply affidavit is that the accident took place outside the state of J&K so benefit of rules of 1994 could not be extended to family of the deceased. It is the main ground taken in the impugned order by respondents to deny the claim of petitioner.
5. Heard Id counsel for parties. Considered the matter.
6. The state of J&K which is a welfare state, has taken conscious decision of providing compassionate appointment in order to provide succor, to the family member of a Government employee who dies in harness; a government employee who dies as a result of militancy related action; and a civilian who dies as a result of militancy related action not involved in militancy related activities. This policy decision was given shape of law by issuance of rules of 1994. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1994 which provide for application of Rules is reproduced as under:
"2. Application of Rules: - These rules shall apply to the compassionate appointment of a person who is 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 a 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 paramilitary force who is killed in action connected with law and order duties within the state of J&K or as a result of enemy action on the line of actual control."
7. In order to attract the Rules of 1994, a person staking claim for compassionate appointment has to satisfy the requirement laid down in Rules of 1994. Rule 2 (iii) has been re-case vide SRO 211 of 1995 dated 28.08.1995, which is reproduced herein below;
"(iii) a civilian who dies as a result of militancy related action [or due to enemy action on the line of Actual Control/International Boarder within the State of Jammu & Kashmir], not involved in militancy related activities and total income of the family from all sources does not exceed *** Rs. 5000/-per month as assessed by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner."
8. While interpreting the Rule, the court has to look at the plain language of the statute and also to look at the purpose sought to be achieved by the said statute. The purpose sought t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
