Pankaj Sharma vs D/o General Administration Ut Of J&k on 31 December 2024

O R D E R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder S Dogra, Member-J)

1. The present TA has been filed by the applicant before Hon’ble High Court as SWP 3212/2015 against Communication No. GDC-209/CM/ 2015- SRO dated 18.09.2015 passed by the respondents. Thereafter, in terms of Section 29 of the CAT Act, this petition was transferred and registered as TA No. 9099 of 2020.

2. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner has come in the present Transfer Application, seeking the following relief: i. allow the present writ petition; ii. quash Communication No. GDC-209/CM/ 2015- SRO dated 18.09.2015, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been held disentitled to Employment in Govt. Service on Compassionate ground; iii. command and direct the respondents more particularly respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner in suitable Govt. Service (as per his qualification) on Compassionate ground w.e.f. the date proforma- respondent has been so appointed; iv. command and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in Govt. Service on the analogy of proforma- respondent (w.e.f. the date proforma- respondent has

:: 3 ::

been so appointed), who was similarly situated and circumstanced as the petitioner, inasmuch as, respective father of both were killed by enemy Fire in Poonch Sector of J&K State in the year 1991;

3. On Admission of the Writ Pretition notices were issued to the respondents and official respondents have filed their counter affidavit.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant reiterated the ground taken by applicant in his TA. The grounds taken by the applicant is as follow: i. That on the application of the petitioner, Dependent Certificate was issued by Assistant Commissioner (Rev), Jammu, vide his No. DCJ/Relief/2013-14/94 dated 12.06.2014, showing the petitioner (Pankaj Sharma) as 24 years unemployed son, mother of the petitioner (Rama Sharma) as 45 years House wife and sister of the petitioner (Pooja Sharma) as 25 years House wife. ii. That the case for appointment of the petitioner in Govt. service on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu vide No. DCJ/CA/SRO-43/2015 dated 30.03.2015, but the Govt. rejected the case on the ground that age of the petitioner / beneficiary at the time of death of his father was 04 years 06 months and 20 days and that the petitioner had not

:: 4 ::

attained the eligibility i.e. 18 years within 5 1/2 years after the death of his father. iii. That the father of the petitioner was having at his back some historical service record such as participating in operation Blue Star, service in NEFA and in in Field Area / border area of J&K

iv. That the father of proforma-respondent had also got killed by enemy fire in the same Military operation on the same date in 1991, as the father of the petitioner and at that time the proforma-respondent was only seven years old and within five years of the death of his father, the proforma-respondent was only 12 years of age and had not attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years, but still the case of the proforma respondent was processed by respondent No. 3 for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 and proforma-respondent has already been appointed as Class-IV employee in Agriculture Department of J&K Govt. and is presently posted in the Tehsil Agriculture Office, Sunderbani Nowshera (District Rajouri). v. That different Yard sticks cannot be used by the respondents No. 1 and 2 while providing public employment under SRO 43, when both, the father of the

:: 5 ::

petitioner and father of the proforma-respondent got killed in the same incident on the same date in enemy fire.

5. Learned Counsel for respondents vehemently denied the contention of the applicant and submitted that Compassionate appointment is subject to said rules and the rules also provide that the applicant must be eligible and qualified for the such post or acquires such eligibility and qualification within the period specified in the rules. Rule 7 of these rules provides for relaxation of age limits or educational/technical qualification in deserving cases. The State Government has adopted a uniform policy in respect of grant of relaxation in compassionate appointment cases in order to avoid pick and choose method. This policy is being followed in letter and spirit. The said policy reads as under:.

i. to settle all cases of Widows of Government employees granting five years relaxation of age beyond 37 years and relaxation in respect of qualification for Class-1V posts;

ii. it to settle all cases of dependents of Government employees where age of eligibility i.e. 18 years has been acquired within 05 and 1/2 years of Government employee's death and also relaxation in qualification for class-IV posts.

:: 6 ::

iii. to settle all cases of dependents of the deceased Government Employees who were within prescribed age limit at the time of death of deceased i.e. 37 years had applied for benefit under SRO-43 within the prescribed time limit of 6 months, but have become overaged while their cases were still under process, granting 5 years relaxation of age beyond 37 years.

6. Learned counsel for respondents further stated that the answering respondents have not received the case of private respondent No. 4 at any point of time and have not granted any relaxation in his favor. Further the petitioner has not chosen to place anything on record to substantiate his contention. As such the contentions of the petitioner that he has been discriminated viz-a-viz the respondent No. 4 is misplaced and without any merit

7. We have heard the parties and gone through the records.

8. We are in view that though compassionate appointment is not matter of right but the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment shall be given to an eligible family member of the deceased to a post which must be commensurate with his qualification and status and it is also equally settled that even in case of compassionate

:: 7 ::

appointments there cannot be different yardsticks for similarly situated persons. Even department should take sympathetic view also since father of applicant was killed by enemy Fire in serving the nation. Even otherwise the case of proforma respondent who was on the same analogy, has been accepted and he has been given appointment on compassionate ground.

9. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the T.A succeeds as a consequence whereof the TA is allowed and Communication No. GDC-209/CM/ 2015- SRO dated 18.09.2015 is quashed. Respondents are further directed to appoint the petitioner in suitable Govt. Service (as per his qualification) on Compassionate ground w.e.f. the date proforma-respondent has been appointed if the case of proforma respondent is on same analogy.

10. With these directions TA No. 9099/2020 is disposed of.

11. This exercise will be completed within 8 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. No order as to cost.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

AK/PS/PK/RP/VS/