Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.

1. In the administration of justice, amongst others, one of the fundamental duties of the Court is to shape up rights of people by chiseling the statute. The expression "Government employee" appearing in Rule 2 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994 (for short "Rules of 1994") requires to be unveiled in its true and correct legal fashion, so as to achieve the object underlying the Rules of 1994.

2. One Mohammad Sadiq (deceased) was appointed as Pharmacist in the year 1991, on ad hoc/stop gap basis. The deceased continued in service of the appellants till February 08, 2003 on which date he breathed his lost. His widow, namely, Safia Begum, sought consideration for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Her case for appointment on compassionate grounds was recommended by the Block Medical Officer, Mendhar vide communication dated 05th March, 2003, the Chief Medical Officer, Poonch vide communication dated 11th March, 2003 and the Director Health Services, Jammu vide communication dated 31st May, 2003. In the communication of the Director Health Service, Jammu request for regularization of the services of the deceased, in terms of Government order No. 1304-GAD of 2001 dated 09th November, 2001 was also made. In the said communication, reference was also made to an identical case which was settled by the Government by issuing Government order No. 304 GAD of 2001 dated 19th July, 2002. Respondent has placed on writ record documents showing that One Smt. Naseer Begum widow of Mohammad Ramzan was ordered to be appointed on compassionate grounds in identical circumstances. The appellants, having failed to address the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds, was constrained to approach the Court by filing SWP No. 1357/2005. It was prayed in the writ petition by the respondent-writ petitioner that appellants be directed to consider her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds or on Class IV post or on any other equivalent post in place of her deceased husband, on the basis of Rules of 1994 or any other equivalent post in place of her deceased husband and in the alternative it was prayed that similar treatment be ordered to be meted out to petitioner which has been given to Smt. Naseer Begum.

3. In the writ petition, it was pleaded that the deceased remained in the employment of the appellants from the year 1991 to 2003 and because of the untimely death of the deceased the family of the deceased was ushered into a very difficult period and it has become difficult for the respondent-writ petitioner to sustain herself because of lack of financial support.

4. Respondents, in objections filed before the writ court, took a stand that as the deceased was working on adhoc basis till his death, so the case of the respondent-writ petitioner is not covered by the rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994.

5. Learned writ Court heard and decided the writ petition in which judgment was pronounced on 29th September, 2009. The contention of the appellants that as the deceased had the status of adhoc employee, so was not covered by the compassionate appointment rules, was negatived by the learned writ Court by relying on earlier judgment of the Court. In terms of the judgment impugned in this LPA, writ petition was allowed and appellants were directed to consider the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in terms of Rules governing the field subject to her qualification and eligibility. Three months period was given for completing the process from the date copy of order would be served upon the appellants.

6. Appellants, being aggrieved of the said judgment, have called the same in question in this LPA.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.

8. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that as the deceased was an adhoc employee, so the Rules 1994 are not attracted and respondent-writ petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document