MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 29 October 2026

1. Muzaffar Hussain, aged 23 years, S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Hafiz, R/o Village Godhar, Tehsil and District Rajouri. …..Applicants (Through Advocate: Mr. Vipin Sharma) VERSUS

1. State of Jammu & Kashmir Through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

2. Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir Goverment, Jammu

3. Inspector General of Police Zone Jammu, Jammu.

4. Director Inspector General of Police RP Range Rajouri, Rajouri.

5. SSP Poonch. .....Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned Addl. A.G.)

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 2 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

O R D E R (Final) Sh. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member The present matter originated as SWP No. 73/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer, came to be registered as T.A. No. 427/2022 before this Tribunal. The applicant has called in question communication No. Pers-A-14/2016/35496 dated 11.06.2016, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment as Constable in the Jammu & Kashmir Police was rejected by the Home Department on the ground that his case was not covered under the amended provisions of SRO-43 of 1994 or the relaxation policy of the General Administration Department. The applicant has also sought a direction commanding the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The case set up by the applicant is that his father, Late Sh. Mohd. Hafiz, who was serving in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, died in harness on 24.06.2008 while on duty, leaving behind his widow and five children. The applicant was a minor at the time of his father's death. It is averred that his mother approached the authorities for compassionate appointment and that, after attaining the requisite educational qualification, the applicant submitted an application dated 14.12.2015 seeking appointment as Constable under SRO-43 of 1994. His case was forwarded to

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 3 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

the Home Department for consideration; however, the same was rejected vide communication dated 11.06.2016. The applicant thereafter served a legal notice dated 05.10.2016 upon the respondents and instituted the writ proceedings challenging the aforesaid rejection.

3. The respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant's father died on 24.06.2008 and that the applicant, being a minor at the relevant time, could not apply for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period. His case was accordingly forwarded to the Government for relaxation of the time limit prescribed under the applicable rules, but the Home Department conveyed that the claim was not covered under the amended provisions of SRO-43 of 1994 or the relaxation policy of the General Administration Department. The respondents have further stated that, after the promulgation of SRO-376 of 2017, the applicant's case was again forwarded to the Home Department and the requisite documents were furnished. However, vide communication dated 23.07.2024, the Home Department conveyed that the applicant, being married, was not covered under the provisions of SRO-376 of 2017. The respondents have, accordingly, maintained that the applicant's claim has been dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules and that no

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 4 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

enforceable right to compassionate appointment has accrued in his favour.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material placed on record. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, the question that arises for consideration is whether the challenge to the rejection communication dated 11.06.2016 is liable to be declined on the ground of delay and laches.

5. It is borne out from the pleadings that the applicant's father died on 24.06.2008 and that the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the competent authority on 11.06.2016. The applicant has himself pleaded that he became aware of the rejection and thereafter served a legal notice dated 05.10.2016 upon the respondents. The original writ petition was instituted in 2017 and was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal, where it came to be registered as T.A. No. 427/2022. Thus, the original challenge to the rejection order was brought before the Court in 2017, whereas the transfer and registration of the matter before this Tribunal took place subsequently.

6. The doctrine of delay and laches is founded upon the principle that a person seeking judicial relief must approach the

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 5 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

competent forum within a reasonable time and must not remain inactive after becoming aware of the decision affecting his rights. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure finality in administrative action, prevent the reopening of stale claims and protect the administration against the prejudice that may result from belated challenges. Although no inflexible period can be prescribed for the application of this principle in every case, the conduct of the applicant, the nature of the relief sought and the explanation furnished for the delay are relevant considerations.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, has emphasised that a person aggrieved by an administrative decision must approach the Court within a reasonable time and cannot ordinarily be permitted to reopen settled matters after an inordinate lapse of time. Likewise, in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the consideration or rejection of a belated representation does not, by itself, revive a stale claim or furnish a fresh cause of action in respect of an earlier decision. These principles are relevant while examining whether subsequent administrative correspondence can revive a challenge to an earlier rejection.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 6 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

8. In the present case, the applicant had knowledge of the rejection dated 11.06.2016 and, as per his own pleadings, issued a legal notice on 05.10.2016. However, the original writ petition was filed in 2017. Therefore, the mere passage of time between the rejection order and the subsequent registration of the transferred matter as T.A. No. 427/2022 cannot, by itself, be treated as unexplained delay in approaching the judicial forum. The relevant consideration is whether the applicant instituted the original proceedings within a reasonable time and whether any subsequent relief sought is founded upon a distinct administrative decision or merely seeks to reopen the original rejection.

9. The applicant has sought to justify his claim primarily on the ground that he was a minor when his father died and that his family was passing through financial hardship. The fact that the applicant was a minor at the time of his father's death is a relevant circumstance explaining why he could not independently pursue an appointment at that stage. Nevertheless, once his claim was considered and rejected on 11.06.2016, the applicant was required to challenge that decision in accordance with law. His minority in 2008 does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to compassionate appointment or dispense with the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable scheme.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 7 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

10. It is also necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee and to mitigate the hardship arising from the sudden loss of the breadwinner. It is not a hereditary right to public employment, nor can appointment be claimed as a matter of course merely because the deceased employee has left behind dependent family members. The claim must be examined within the framework of the applicable rules and subject to the conditions prescribed therein. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rule of recruitment and is intended to meet the immediate financial crisis confronting the family of the deceased employee.

11. The subsequent administrative processing of the applicant's claim after the promulgation of SRO-376 of 2017 requires separate consideration. The respondents have themselves stated that the applicant's case was again forwarded to the Home Department and that certain documents were sought and furnished during 2023 and 2024. Ultimately, the Home Department, vide communication dated 23.07.2024, conveyed that the applicant, being married, was not covered under SRO- 376 of 2017. Such subsequent consideration does not

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 8 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

automatically revive the original challenge to the communication dated 11.06.2016. However, where a subsequent decision gives rise to a distinct cause of action and is properly brought within the scope of the proceedings, its legal effect cannot be determined merely by reference to the date of the original rejection.

12. In the circumstances, the objection of delay and laches must be examined with reference to the relief actually sought and the procedural history of the case. The challenge to the communication dated 11.06.2016 cannot be treated as having been instituted only in 2022, since the matter originated as SWP No. 73/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court. At the same time, the subsequent consideration of the applicant's case under SRO-376 of 2017 does not, by itself, confer a right to reopen the original rejection under SRO-43 of 1994. The applicant cannot claim an automatic entitlement to appointment merely on the basis of the administrative correspondence or the asserted continuing financial hardship of his family.

13. Having regard to the nature of compassionate appointment, the terms of the governing scheme and the distinction between the original rejection and the subsequent administrative consideration, we find no basis to grant the applicant an automatic direction for appointment under SRO-43 of 1994. The

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 9 :: T.A. No. 61/427/2022

applicant's claim is subject to the applicable eligibility conditions, and the mere fact that his case was forwarded or reconsidered by the authorities does not establish an enforceable right to appointment. The relief sought cannot, therefore, be granted merely on the ground of the financial circumstances pleaded by the applicant.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the applicant has failed to establish an enforceable entitlement to the relief of compassionate appointment as claimed in the present proceedings. The challenge to the original rejection dated 11.06.2016 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of subsequent administrative correspondence, nor does the consideration of the case under SRO-376 of 2017 establish an automatic right to appointment. Accordingly, the T.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(DIWAKAR SINGH)

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) Judicial Member Administrative Member RS Pathania Steno-D

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA