The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 3(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994, which provides the option for family members of deceased civilians to choose compassionate appointment or cash compensation.

N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order made in SWP No. 1902/2007, dated 11.04.2016 directing the respondents therein to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of death of his brother due to attack of militants. The plea raised before the writ court was that the cash payment was made in lieu of compassionate appointment and the family of the deceased received the amount.

2. The learned Single Judge did not accept the said contention and issued direction to Deputy Commissioner, Doda to issue appointment order though the petitioner was not qualified by granting relaxation in favour of the petitioner as has been granted to several other persons.

3. Vide order dated 24.08.2016, this Court directed the learned counsel for the appellant to verify and report as to whether amount was claimed by legal heirs and actually received by the legal heirs. Learned Counsel for the appellants, on instructions, submits that said amount though deposited by the department, yet the same has not been withdrawn by the family of the deceased. Thus, it is evident that the appellant on their own deposited the amount without any demand from the legal heirs/dependents.

4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has relied on Rule 3(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994 and submits that as per the proviso to Rule 3 as amended in SRO 199 of 2008, dated 04.07.2008, anyone of the family member of the deceased who fulfills eligibility criteria can seek compassionate appointment or choose cash compensation at the option of the person who is seeking the benefit. Rule 3(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994 as amended by SRO 199 of 2008, dated 4.07.2008 reads thus:-

"3(3)-Notwithstanding the provisions of the rules contained herein for compassionate appointment, the family members of the civilians killed in militancy related action as specified in clause (iii) of the Rule 2 shall be entitled to a cash compensation in lieu of appointment in government service of an amount specified by the Government which shall be payable in their favour in a manner to be notified by the government.

Provided that if any one among the family members of the deceased civilian fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed under the aforesaid rules for appointment into the government service or acquires such eligibility within one year from the date of death of the deceased person, then they shall have the option either to choose the government service or the cash compensation".

5. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as per the proviso to Rule 3, option is to be given to anyone of the family members either to choose compassionate appointment or cash compensation and since Respondent No. 1 is interested in seeking compassionate appointment, the appellants cannot insist that he is entitled to receive lump-sum compensation and not compassionate appointment. In the light of said submission and having regard to the scheme providing compassionate appointment to one of the family members of deceased and the family members having chosen not to receive cash the order of writ court is perfectly justified. There is no merit in the L.P. Appeal and the same is dismissed along with connected MPs. No costs.

Appeal Dismissed.