Engagement in the Territorial Army does not constitute government service under compassionate appointment rules, thus not disqualifying dependency claims.

ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2723/2013 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/690/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

a) “Writ of certiorari quashing the order No. RD & PR/Estt./NG-

71/2013 dated 15.07.2013 whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent No.1 without any reason and with the motive to deny the right to the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground.

With b) writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground being the legal heir of late Sh. Darshan Lal, who was serving as Helper and died in harness as such the petitioner is entitle to get the compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 in order to save the family from starvation and relax qualification bar for appointment of petitioner as Class-IV employee in terms of Rule 7 of SRO 43.

Digitally c) Any other writ, direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows:

a) The petitioner, Suresh Kumar, aged 28 years, is the son of Late Sh. Darshan Lal, a resident of District Samba in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner’s father was working as a Helper in the Rural Development Department on regular cadre and expired on 2^nd January 2013 while in active service. Following the demise of his father, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, asserting that he and his widowed mother were completely dependent on the income of the deceased and had no other means of livelihood.

b) The case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was duly recommended by respondent No. 2 (Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu) and forwarded to respondent No. 1 (Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department) along with all supporting Digitally documents including the requisite No Objection Certificates from all legal heirs. Despite the same, the case of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 1 on the ground that one of the family members of the deceased (petitioner’s brother) is serving in the Indian Army.

c) The petitioner submitted that the brother who is in the Army constitutes a separate household, is not a dependent, and does not contribute to the family income. It is stated that the petitioner and his mother together form a separate family and are on the verge of starvation due to lack of income after the death of the sole breadwinner. It is further contended that all legal heirs have submitted their No Objection Certificates and have not raised any dispute with regard to the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

d) The petitioner also highlighted that SRO 43 is a welfare provision enacted to provide support to the families of government servants who die in harness, in order to save them from destitution. The respondents have allegedly rejected the case without proper appreciation of the ground realities, and Digitally without considering that the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner himself were totally dependent on the deceased. It is further argued that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed even by relaxing the qualification bar, as permitted under the said Rules, since he possessed