Zaina Begum vs D/o Rural Development Ut Of J&k on 2 November 2026

1. Zaina Begum, Aged 44 years, Wd/o Late Abdul Rehman Sheikh, R/o Drang Tehsil Khag District Budgam. .… Petitioner

By Advocate : Mr. Sameer Ahmad Dar VERSUS

1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu.

2. Deputy Commissioner, Budgam.

3. Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir, Srinagar.

4. Deputy Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir, Srinagar.

5. Project Officer, Wage Employment (ACD) Budgma.

6. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beerwah, Budgam.

7. Tehsiladar, Khag.

8. Block Development Officer, Beerwah, Budgam. ....Respondents

By Advocate :- Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG

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

SHUBHAM SHARMA

01. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the T.A., is that her husband, namely, Late Abdul Rehman Sheikh, was working as a Plantation Watcher in the Rural Development Department and rendered his services to the Department. However, he died in harness on 14.02.2009, leaving behind the petitioner, who has no independent source of income and belongs to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category.

02. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 03.12.2010 before respondent No. 7 for processing her case under SRO 43, and the case of the petitioner was under process before the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the higher authorities for issuance of a dependent certificate, which was issued to her on 07.09.2015 vide No. SDM/BWR/N/2015/534. Finally, the recommendation was forwarded by respondent No. 8 to the higher authorities for appointing the petitioner to the post of Orderly.

03. It is stated that the in the petition that respondent No. 5 communicated with respondent No. 3 vide communication No. ACD/Bud/Estt/SRO-43/10926-27 dated 09.12.2015 and another communication No. ACD/Bud/Estt/SRO-43/775-76 dated 06.05.2016 for further necessary action in the matter.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the recommendations having been forwarded by the lower authorities to respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 communicated to respondent No. 5 vide communication No. DRDK/Est/PF/1/SRO- 43/5932 dated 25.05.2016 that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was time-barred and also directed respondent No. 5 to inform the petitioner accordingly. However, according to learned counsel, the respondent No. 4 did not take any serious note of the fact that the petitioner had approached the respondents in time, but, a suit had been filed by the brothers of the deceased before the Hon'ble Court of the Munsiff, and the delay in the case was neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence, the present petition.

05. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Tribunal by way of the present Transfer Application, seeking the following reliefs/directions against the respondents:

a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in tersm of SRO 43 of 1994; OR

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compensation in lieu of appointment to the petitioner in terms of SRO 199 of 2008; OR

SHUBHAM SHARMA

c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide exgratia relief as admissible to petitioner who has not till date received the same.

d) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the attending facts and circumstances of the case also passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

06. Arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his relief to clause (b), i.e., “a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compensation in lieu of appointment to the petitioner in terms of SRO 199 of 2008”.

07. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, submits that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, they have no objection if the present T.A. is disposed of in terms of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

09. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present T.A. may be disposed of at this stage.

10. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present T.A. pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present T.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation in lieu of appointment in terms of SRO 199 of 2008 and take a decision thereon within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order. While undertaking such consideration, the respondents shall examine the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the applicable law, rules and regulations, keeping in view the merits of the case and the entitlement of the petitioner, if any, subject to there being no other legal or factual impediment. The respondents are also directed to associate the petitioner in the process of consideration.

12. It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims or contentions raised by either side. All questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, T.A. No. 162/2021 is disposed of along with the connected M.As., if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

14. Consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.

(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Judl.)

Shubham sharma

SHUBHAM SHARMA