The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider compassionate appointment cases promptly and uniformly, applying the relevant provisions and offering appointment to save the family of the deceased from vagaries of starvation.

JUDGMENT :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, by a writ of certiorari, has sought quashment of impugned Communication No. DCK/LS/ARA/16/700-701, dated 19.10.2016 addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2 as also a writ of mandamus, for commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

FACTS

2. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Farid Ahmed Khan, is stated to have got killed by some unknown gunmen in the year, 1994. An FIR is also stated to have got registered with the concerned Police Station in this regard. An amount of Rupees One Lac is stated to have been paid as compensation to the family of the deceased. Proforma respondent No. 5 herein being the brother of the petitioner herein states to have applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 on account of the death of the above named brother of the petitioner, however, the proforma respondent No. 5 is stated to have got appointed in the Police Department in the year, 2007 during the pendency of his case for compassionate appointment, as a consequence whereof, the proforma respondent No. 5 herein withdrew his case for consideration for compassionate appointment by bringing the fact of his appointment to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara by virtue of an application dated 22.5.2008. An enquiry is also stated to have been conducted on the said application of the proforma respondent No. 5 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara and a report in this regard had been furnished by Tehsildar, Kupwara dated 23.10.2010 endorsing and authenticating the appointment of the proforma respondent No. 5 in the Police Department, withdrawal of his claim for compassionate appointment and substitution of the petitioner herein for claim for compassionate appointment.

3. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 2682/2011 seeking therein the quashment of Order No. 236/DCK/Adm of 2009, dated 16.11.2009 to the extent of respondent No. 5 (proforma respondent No. 5 in the instant writ petition) with a further relief for commanding the respondents to consider his representation and process his case for compassionate appointment under SRO 43.

4. The writ petition (supra) came to be disposed of in terms of Order dated 26.10.2015 passed by this Court, giving liberty to the petitioner herein to pursue the representation already made before the authorities. The respondents, however, are stated to have addressed the impugned communication dated 19.10.2016 inter se declining to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner under SRO 43 on the sole ground that the petitioner was under age at the time of the death of his brother, thus, not being eligible, instead holding him entitled to a cash compensation of Rupees four lacs.

5. The impugned communication dated 19.10.2016 being challenged in the instant petition inter-alia on the grounds that the same has been addressed in gross violation of Rules governing the field and in presence of a provision for relaxation of age provided in the Rules read with Govt. Order No. 663-GAD of 1997, dated 19.05.1997 and that the impugned communication lacks legal force in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court dated 10.11.2016 passed in LPA (SW) No. 96/2017 titled as State of J&K vs. Chuni Lal and Another, 2017 (5) JKJ 266 and that the petitioner has been denied relaxation of age while issuing impugned communication although the respondents have had in similar cases accorded relaxation both in age and education of claimants for compassionate appointment and that the petitioner is a handicapped person having been subjected to hostile and illegal discrimination by the respondents.

6. Per contra, objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 wherein dismissal of the writ petition is being sought on the grounds that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of f