Suraya Khan vs D/o Civil Secretariat, J& K on 26 October 2026

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt, General Administration Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu.

2. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt, School Education Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu

3. Director School Education Kashmir Srinagar.

4. Chief Education Officer Srinagar.

5. Zonal Education Officer Srinagar. ….Respondents

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

By Advocate :- Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG

O R D E R (FINAL) JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. The present Transfer Application, arising out of SWP No. 627/2020, has been filed by the applicant seeking retrospective approval of her appointment as a teacher on compassionate grounds with effect from the year 1992, when she was initially engaged for a period of 89 days against an available migrant vacancy. The applicant has also sought consequential service benefits, including salary arrears, pay fixation, seniority, promotion and other benefits, on the premise that her appointment ought to have been approved on compassionate grounds from the date of her initial engagement.

02. The case of the applicant is that, in the year 1990, her father, Gh. Mohi-ud-Din Khan, sustained bullet injuries in a security forces incident, resulting in the loss of vision in both eyes. According to the applicant, the family was

Location:

Devendra Tripathi consequently faced with financial hardship, as there was no other earning member capable of supporting the family. In these circumstances, an application was submitted before the competent authorities seeking her appointment as a teacher on compassionate grounds.

03. It is averred that the application was forwarded through the concerned authorities and that recommendations were made in favour of the applicant for her appointment in the Education Department. The applicant relies upon the communication dated 09.04.1990 and the subsequent communications and orders dated 24.07.1991 and 30.09.1991 in support of her claim.

04. The record further indicates that, vide communication dated 09.04.1990, the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, recommended the applicant’s case for appointment as a teacher, taking note of her post-graduation qualification in M.A. (Education). It was also recommended that she be adjusted against an available migrant post as a Teacher for a period of 89 days, pending approval of her regular

Location:

Devendra Tripathi appointment on compassionate grounds by the Government. The engagement was thereafter extended, and she was permitted to continue against the said vacancy. The applicant contends that her initial engagement was made in the backdrop of the recommendations for compassionate appointment and that the respondents ought to have granted approval to her appointment on that basis.

05. The applicant’s services were subsequently regularized vide Government Order No. 269-DSEK of 2008 dated 13.02.2008. The applicant maintains that, notwithstanding her regularization and continued service, the respondents failed to grant approval to her appointment on compassionate grounds with effect from the date of her initial engagement. She states that she submitted several representations seeking such approval, but her claim remained undecided.

06. The applicant has accordingly questioned the inaction of the respondents in not granting retrospective approval to

Location:

Devendra Tripathi her appointment on compassionate grounds. Her principal contention is that, since her case had been recommended by the competent authorities and she had been engaged as a teacher in the circumstances stated above, she is entitled to have her appointment treated as one made on compassionate grounds from the year 1992, together with all consequential service benefits.

07. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the claim. In their objections, they have stated that the applicant was initially engaged as a teacher for 89 days against an available migrant vacancy and was thereafter allowed to continue in the post. They have further stated that her services were regularized vide Order No. 269-DSEK of 2008 dated 13.02.2008. According to the respondents, the fact that the applicant was engaged against a migrant vacancy and was subsequently regularized does not confer upon her a right to claim retrospective approval of the said engagement as an appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents have, therefore, sought dismissal of the

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

Transfer Application.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

09. The controversy which arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective approval of her initial engagement as an appointment on compassionate grounds from the year 1992, merely because her claim for such appointment remained pending consideration, notwithstanding her subsequent regularization against a migrant vacancy and her eventual retirement from service.

10. The object underlying a scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased Government employee and to mitigate the financial hardship arising from the sudden loss of its breadwinner. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rules of recruitment and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, independently of the conditions prescribed under the applicable scheme. An appointment

Location:

Devendra Tripathi on compassionate grounds must, therefore, be founded upon an entitlement recognized by the governing scheme and the applicable rules.

11. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that, at the time the applicant was initially engaged as a teacher for a period of 89 days in the year 1992 against an available migrant vacancy; her father was alive, though stated to have lost his eyesight. The circumstances relied upon by the applicant may explain the hardship faced by the family and the representations made for her appointment. However, the fact that her father suffered a disability, or that the applicant was his dependent, does not by itself establish an entitlement to appointment under a scheme applicable to dependants of Government employees who die in harness.

12. The record indicates that the applicant’s initial engagement was made as a temporary arrangement against an available migrant vacancy. The engagement was subsequently extended, and she was permitted to

Location:

Devendra Tripathi continue against the said vacancy. Her services were eventually regularized vide Government Order No. 269- DSEK of 2008 dated 13.02.2008. These developments are material in determining the nature of the appointment actually granted to the applicant and the terms governing her service.

13. The mere fact that recommendations were made in favour of the applicant, or that her request for compassionate appointment remained pending consideration, does not, by itself, establish that her initial engagement was an appointment made under the compassionate appointment scheme. A recommendation for appointment and an actual appointment under a particular scheme are distinct matters. The claim must be assessed with reference to the applicable scheme, the conditions of eligibility prescribed therein and the order under which the applicant was actually engaged.

14. The applicant’s subsequent regularization against the migrant vacancy does not, in the absence of any enabling

Location:

Devendra Tripathi provision or specific order, confer upon her a right to have her initial period of engagement retrospectively treated as service rendered pursuant to an appointment on compassionate grounds. Her regularization must be governed by the terms of the order under which it was granted. In the absence of a provision or order authorizing such retrospective treatment, the regularization order cannot be construed as conferring retrospective approval of compassionate appointment.

15. The applicant’s claim, therefore, cannot be accepted merely on the ground that she was initially engaged in circumstances of financial hardship or that the competent authorities had recommended consideration of her case. Even if the application for compassionate appointment was not formally decided, such omission does not automatically convert the temporary engagement against a migrant vacancy into an appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The applicant was required to establish an enforceable entitlement under the

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

applicable scheme and the relevant service rules.

16. It is also necessary to consider the subsequent developments in the applicant’s service. Admittedly, she was appointed as a teacher against a migrant vacancy, her services were subsequently regularized against the said vacancy, and she continued in service until her retirement. These subsequent events cannot be ignored while considering the relief claimed. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to address the immediate financial crisis arising from the circumstances contemplated by the scheme; it is not intended to provide an additional avenue of employment or to confer retrospective benefits irrespective of the terms of the appointment actually made.

17. In the present case, the applicant has already secured regular employment as a teacher and thereafter retired from service. In these circumstances, she cannot claim a further or retrospective appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme solely on the basis of

Location:

Devendra Tripathi an application that remained pending consideration. Her subsequent appointment, regularization and retirement are material circumstances which must be considered alongside the applicable scheme and the orders governing her service.

18. The fact that the respondents have not formally decided the applicant’s claim for retrospective approval does not, by itself, confer upon her an enforceable right to such approval. Nor can the failure to decide the representations, standing alone, serve as a legal basis for granting retrospective appointment or consequential service benefits in the absence of a demonstrated entitlement under the governing rules. The relief sought must be supported by the applicable scheme and the terms of the applicant’s actual engagement and regularization.

19. The claim for retrospective appointment and consequential benefits must, therefore, be distinguished from the question whether the applicant was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment at the relevant

Location:

Devendra Tripathi time. The material placed on record establishes that recommendations were made and that the applicant was initially engaged against a migrant vacancy. However, the material does not establish that her engagement was made pursuant to a formal appointment order under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme, or that any governing provision authorized retrospective conversion of the said engagement into such an appointment.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to establish an enforceable legal entitlement to retrospective approval of her initial engagement as an appointment on compassionate grounds with effect from the year 1992. The mere pendency of her application or representations cannot, in the absence of a specific enabling provision or order, confer such a right upon her. Consequently, the claim for consequential service benefits founded upon the said retrospective approval is also not sustainable.

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

21. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is dismissed. The relief sought for retrospective approval of the applicant’s appointment on compassionate grounds with effect from the year 1992, together with consequential service benefits, is declined. The applicant’s initial engagement, subsequent regularization and service until retirement shall remain governed by the orders under which they were made, subject to any other entitlement independently available to her under the applicable service rules.

22. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

24. The Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Judl.)

26.10.2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Location:

Devendra Tripathi