Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Mohd. Sadeeeq – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 19/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Z.A. Mughal
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG
Compassionate appointment claims under SRO 43 should be recognized from judicial declarations of death rather than disappearance, allowing eligible applicants to receive due consideration.
Headnote:(A) SRO 43 of 1994 - Compassionate appointment - The petitioner sought compassionate appointment under SRO 43, based on the disappearance of his father in a militancy-related incident. The petitioner’s eligibility was disputed based on the timing of the application for appointment and dependency certification. (Paras 15, 21, 22)
(B) Judicial Declaration of Death - The Tribunal determined that the cause of action for compassionate appointment arose from the judicial declaration of death in 2017, not from the date of disappearance in 2003. This establishes that the applicant's claim was timely. (Paras 17, 21)
(C) Eligibility Criteria - The Tribunal found that the applicant met all criteria for compassionate appointment under SRO 43, including family income limits and educational qualifications. The respondents' previous acknowledgment of a militancy-related death further supported the claim. (Paras 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment due to his father's disappearance during militancy-related action and submitted he met all necessary qualifications under SRO 43 of 1994 as amended. (Paras 3, 11)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's father was acknowledged by the Tribunal as having been taken in a militancy incident and recognized by the ex-gratia payment. Therefore, the denial of appointment was arbitrary. (Paras 21, 23)
Issues: The main issues revolved around the timing of the application under SRO 43 and whether the denial of compassionate appointment was arbitrary given the circumstances of the father's disappearance. (Paras 15, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that the legal declaration of death started the clock for application under SRO 43. It found that strict adherence to application timeframes should not obstruct meritorious claims. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: Transfer Application allowed directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under SRO 43.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for compassionate appointment under sro 43. (Para 2 , 3 , 11) |
| 2. eligibility criteria must reflect practical realities. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 22) |
| 3. judicial declaration establishes starting point for claims. (Para 15 , 17 , 19 , 21) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 984/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/19/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “Writ of Mandamus, so as to command and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994 , as amended up-to- date, in view of his qualification after declaring the petitioner eligible in all respects in the interest of justice.
b) Further Writ of Mandamus; Commanding and directing the respondents to grant relaxation in qualification as the petitioner is Middle pass, the other eligibilities are duly possessed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
AND
c) Any other writ Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows:
a) The petitioner, Mohd. Sadeeq, aged 37 years, son of Ghulam Mohd., is a permanent resident of Village Azamabad, Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir, and a citizen of India, entitled to all fundamental, legal, and statutory rights as enshrined in the Constitution and applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
b) In 2003, the petitioner’s father, Ghulam Mohd., allegedly went missing in a militancy-related incident when he was taken away by Army personnel of 17 Rashtriya Rifles. A missing report was lodged at Police Station Mandi, District Poonch (Annexure-A).
c) Since then, the petitioner’s father has remained untraced for over 13 years. Under the law, a person untraced for more than seven years is presumed dead. The incident of forced disappearance was confirmed by public representatives of the area, including the Lumberdar and Chowkidar, via an authentication dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure-B).
d) The concerned Niab Tehsildar conducted an inquiry and reported that the petitioner’s father was taken away by the Army during a period of militancy (Annexure-C).
e) The petitioner’s family, comprising five members, was dependent solely on the father for livelihood. After his disappearance, the family faced severe financial hardship. The ration card showing the dependents is enclosed as Annexure-D.
f) The petitioner is a middle pass and eligible for age relaxation for Class-IV posts under SRO 43 of 1994 . His qualification certificate is enclosed as Annexure-E.
g) As per SRO 43 of 1994 , compassionate appointment can be granted to a family member of a civilian who dies due to militancy-related action, provided the family income does not exceed Rs. 5000/- per month, as certified by the competent Revenue Officer. The petitioner fulfills these conditions.
h) The petitioner, being poor and unemployed, applied under SRO 43 in 2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, for compassionate appointment after the expiry of the seven-year period from the disappearance of his father.
i) The petitioner also made representations to respondent No. 3 seeking consideration of his claim (Annexure-F) but received no action. The petitioner filed a claim for ex-gratia relief before the State Human Rights Commission, which, after due inquiry, awarded Rs. 1 lakh to his family. The Tehsildar, Mandi, recommended release of this ex-gratia amount as per SHRC directions (Annexure-G). The petitioner alleges that despite eligibility under SRO 43, the respondents have not considered his case for compassionate appointment, whereas similarly situated persons have been granted such appointments.
