Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 141 (JK)

Sajad Ahmed Mir v. State

2000-07-15

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
1) One Shabir Ahmad Mir, was a Lineman in Power Development Department of the State who died on 6-3-1987. Petitioner, son of the said deceased lineman, applied for compassionate appointment in September. 1991. His case was put up by respondent no 4 to respondent no. 3 who in turn endorsed and recommended his case further to respondent no. 2 who on his part recommended case to Administrative Department-with request for appointment after relaxation of qualification and age bar (Annexure B, C, D, E and F). However, respondent no. 1 through Additional Secretary to Government PDD, informed Development Commissioner (Power) Jammu, that the case is not covered by SRO 43 and this communication was conveyed to officer down the line with informing them that petitioners case has not been approved. The matter was again taken up by the Executive Engineer (Annexure J&K) and by the Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer (Annexure L&M) with the Civil Secretariat Power Development Department the Administrative Department of J&K FDD. The Administrative Department on examination of the matter informed the Chief Engineer that the case for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been turned down by the Administrative Department in 1996 which decision has been already communicated to all concerned in July, 1996 (Annexure - N). This communication is impugned in the petition. This decision of turning down petitioners claim for compassionate appointment is challenged on the ground that though the petitioner was under age and had not required qualifications for such appointment, but all the same the government has the powers to relax the both age and qualification bar which has not been done in petitioners case. Though, he applied within time, but due to the inaction and lapse of the respondents his case has not been settled so far as relaxation of age and qualification bar is concerned, notwithstanding positive recommendation of the lower rung officers of the department. Petitioner is the only legal heir of his deceased father who died in harness while serving the Power Development Department. A right has accrued to the petitioner for such appointment before his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. Long period has been taken to decide the claim and inordinate delay has been taken in rejecting the petitioners claim. This ground perse for sought compassionate appointment entitles him to appointment. He should not have made to suffer for bureaucrat inaction. A right has accrued to the petitioner for such appointment before his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. Long period has been taken to decide the claim and inordinate delay has been taken in rejecting the petitioners claim. This ground perse for sought compassionate appointment entitles him to appointment. He should not have made to suffer for bureaucrat inaction. 2) In reply respondents have set up the counter case that the petitioners request and claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the administrative Department (FDD of J&K Govt. Civil Sectt. Jammu/ Srinagar), while administrative department in early 1966 and the petitioner was informed of the decision taken in March. 1996 itself. Petitioner has not challenged this decision in the writ petition. The petitioners compassionate appointment case again came before the Administrative Department (Power Development Commissioner). 3) On examination of the matter, the compassionate appointment case of the petitioner was turned down by Administrative Department and the decision communicated to Chief Engineer Maintenance and R&Wing Srinagar on 12-7-96 as reiterated in the communication dated 8-6-1999 (Annexure R2) and through proper channel it was also conveyed to Executive Engineer and the petitioner. No right of petitioner is violated. His case for compassionate appointment has not been approved and the decision of turning down of sought appointment on compassionate grounds was conveyed to the concerned as early as on July, 1996 Therefore, the prayer of petitioner for consideration of the matter is not warranted in so far as the petitioners case stood considered, decided and rejected. 4) The whole object and purpose of compassionate appointment of a family member of a Government employee dying interalia in harness other than due to militancy related cause is in the nature of concession given and accommodation shown by the Government with a view to enable the indigent family of deceased employee to obiviate extreme hardship caused to the family and tie over the hard and averse financial difficulties but it due to death of its bread earner who happen to be a Government employee. It is not in the nature of appointment as a matter of statutory right, but squarely falls within description of a concession granted by the State Government to tie over the extreme hardship of indigent family of the deceased government employee in a fit case. It is not in the nature of appointment as a matter of statutory right, but squarely falls within description of a concession granted by the State Government to tie over the extreme hardship of indigent family of the deceased government employee in a fit case. Obviously, it is for the government to determine which a fit case and who can be said to be a deserving person among the family members of the employee to whom government job within a parameters of rules is merited to be offered. This is a common card which runs through all the compassionate appointment rules framed from time to time in the State. In this case full facts were before the competent authority, Administration Department/ Power Development Department of the State. 5) On consideration of the matter, the Administrative Department decline to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner. From record it is seen that the compassionate appointment has been turned down some where in middle of 1996 and the decision thereto was conveyed to the officers in July, 1996 and earlier to that date, even the decision of the Government not relaxing the age and the qualification bar to enable petitioner to seek compassionate appointment was also conveyed to concerned in March, 1996. These orders have not been as such challenged in the writ. Instead petitioners has opted to challenge letter -addresses to Chief Engineer by Administrative Officer of Power Development Commissioner Srinagar dated 8-6-1999 which refers to the decision of turning down the case of compassionate appointment of petitioner and communication thereof in July 1996. The order(s) turning down petitioners case for compassionate appointment is not under challenge in the petition, directly and substantially. Failure to throw challenge to the order rejecting appointment on compassionate grounds as such in the writ petition has to operate adversely to petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of rights. It is at the most a concession which PDD, the administrative department could have given to concerned party powers and discretion to refuse to relax the age and qualification baiter the compassionate appointment within the parameters of the rules is with the PDD of the Government. It is neither pleaded nor shown that exercise of discression in the manner as is done in this case is vitiated in any manner. No bureaucratic inaction or laxicity is noted on the part of the respondents. It is neither pleaded nor shown that exercise of discression in the manner as is done in this case is vitiated in any manner. No bureaucratic inaction or laxicity is noted on the part of the respondents. Merely the petitioner, as claimed by him has been moving from one officer to other, in the faint hope that one day events may take turn to his liking and tied may oh his side, is no reason to offer appointment on compassionate grounds, once on consideration a conscious decision is taken and such claim is turned down. Despite the claim having been turned down in July, 1996 petitioner opted to file a writ petition in June. 1999 to question the rejection of petitioners claim for compassionate appointment. 6) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be assumed that petitioner had no knowledge of his rejection of claim. 7) Viewed in any case petitioners challenge to communication between Power Development Department and Chief Engineer and not the decision/ order of rejection of his claim is even belated. 8) For aforesaid reasons no ground muchless a good ground is made out to admit this petition to hearing. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.