Compassionate appointment cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds or delays solely attributable to the administration, especially when the state has previously set the claim in motion and cannot benefit from its own inaction.

O R D E R (FINAL)

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. Through the medium of the instant Original Application, the applicant seeks quashing of communication/order dated 17.10.2022 whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected, and further seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him as Constable in J&K Police under SRO-43 of 1994 read with SRO-255 of 2016 along with consequential benefits.

02. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that his father, namely SGCT Abdul Aziz Bhat, while serving in J&K Armed Police, was martyred on 18.02.2000 in a militant attack at Soura, Srinagar. It is pleaded that after the death of the sole breadwinner, the family was left in financial distress and one of the dependents was entitled to compassionate appointment under the rules in force.

03. It is not in dispute that initially the case of compassionate appointment was processed in favour of the applicant’s brother, namely Mudasir Ahmad Bhat. The said case remained under consideration for a considerable period and ultimately came to be rejected vide communication dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure-A5) on the ground that the said beneficiary had become ineligible. At the same time, the respondents directed that the case of any other eligible dependent of the deceased be processed on priority.

04. Pursuant thereto, the case of the present applicant was initiated. The applicant submitted the requisite application on 06.12.2021, and the respondents proceeded to undertake all necessary formalities, including verification of character and antecedents, medical examination, and collection of requisite documents (Annexure A6-A14). The case of the applicant was thereafter forwarded to the competent authority for consideration vide communication dated 17.12.2021.

05. However, the claim of the applicant came to be rejected on the ground that the case of the earlier beneficiary was not pending as on the date of issuance of SRO-255 of 2016, and therefore, the present claim was not covered under the said provision. The aforesaid rejection is impugned in the present proceedings.

06. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rejection of the claim is arbitrary and contrary to record, inasmuch as the respondents themselves had directed processing of the case of another dependent after rejecting the claim of the applicant’s brother. It is further submitted that once the case of the applicant was processed and all formalities were completed, the respondents could not have rejected the claim on a hyper-technical ground. It is also contended that the delay, if any, is attributable to the respondents themselves and cannot be used to defeat the legitimate claim of the applicant.

07. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is governed strictly by the applicable rules. It is contended that under SRO-255 of 2016, only those cases which were pending as on the date of issuance of the said notification could be considered, and since the case of the applicant’s brother was not pending in the manner contemplated under the rules, the claim of the applicant is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the claim suffers from delay and is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

09. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of t