Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 206 (JK)

Parveen Manhas v. State

2006-09-18

NIRMAL SINGH

body2006
1. Late Head Constable, Vikram Jeet Singh, No.731-AP-9th Bn., husband of the petitioner was serving in JKAP (9th Bn) and while he was posted at Srinagar, he sustained injuries in AH John Shopping Complex on 17-10-2003 in a militant attack and later on succumbed to his injuries on 24-10-2003. Thereafter the petitioner being the widow of the deceased-Vikram Jeet Singh, moved an application before the respondents alongwith necessary documents for appointing her on compassionate ground under SRO-43 of 1994, but the petitioner was not given the compassionate appointment. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article l26 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground under SRO 43 of 1994. 3. On notice the respondents in their reply have taken a ground for not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner that she has not submitted the requisite documents. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Range Kashmir, Srinagar, had found the application of the petitioner incomplete on the following grounds:- "Appointment case of Smt. Parveen Manhas w/p late HC Vikram Jeet Singh No.731/J AKP 9th Battalion received vide your letter under reference has been found incomplete as per following observations:- I. The affidavits of the father of the deceased Head constable as well as of the beneficiary has been found with respect of pensionary benefits only. No mention of appointment of the beneficiary has been found in these affidavits, which shall have been obtained actually for the appointment purpose only. II. Besides an affidavit should have been obtained from the beneficiary to the effect that she will not remarry if she is appointed under relevant SRO. III. Affidavits from remaining dependents have not been obtained. The case as such is returned herewith for doing the needful and early re-submission." I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Range Kashmir, Srinagar, while examining the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has found the same incomplete on the ground that the affidavit of the legal heirs has not been submitted alongwith the application to the effect that they have no objection for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Range Kashmir, Srinagar, while examining the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has found the same incomplete on the ground that the affidavit of the legal heirs has not been submitted alongwith the application to the effect that they have no objection for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner has placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Range Kashmir, Srinagar, the affidavit of the legal heirs of the deceased in respect of grant of pensionary benefits, but in this affidavit it has not been mentioned that the petitioner may be given appointment. 5. When the legal heirs of the deceased have already given the affidavit that they have no objections for giving the pensionary benefits to the petitioner then respondents should not be too technical to take a view that the petitioner should again obtain an affidavit from the beneficiary regarding her appointment on compassionate ground. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Munsiff, Akhnoor in Civil Suit bearing File No.l63/Civil titled Parveen Manhas vs. Suram Singh and ors. has already decided that the petitioner is the sole legal heir of the deceased. The suit was decreed to the following effect:- ".... Heard arguments of ld. Counsel for plaintiff as well as the Id. Counsel for defendants & also perused the record placed on filed, carefully. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of plaintiff against the defendants declaring the plaintiff as legal heir of her deceased husband, Biraramjit Singh and restrained the defendants from interfering or raising any sort of objection claim or title upon the salary, arrears, pensionary benefits, G.P. Fund and other benefits to be given to the widow of deceased. As per facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Let a decree sheet be prepared, accordingly arid filed shall go to records after its due completion." 7. The findings recorded by the Civil Court are binding upon the respondents. Therefore, the respondents should not ask the petitioner to submit a fresh affidavit from the beneficiary regarding her appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents are also asking for an affidavit from the petitioner that she will not re-marry if she is appointed under the relevant SRO. The findings recorded by the Civil Court are binding upon the respondents. Therefore, the respondents should not ask the petitioner to submit a fresh affidavit from the beneficiary regarding her appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents are also asking for an affidavit from the petitioner that she will not re-marry if she is appointed under the relevant SRO. Under SRO-43 of 1994 there is no condition that if the spouse is appointed on compassionate ground he or she will not remarry. In view of the findings recorded by the Civil Court there is no question of asking of the affidavit(s) of the remaining defendants/legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner is to be given compassionate appointment as per SRO-43 of 1994. 8. In view of the above discussion, orders dated 16-03-2004 and 11-07-2005 bearing No.AHQK/Estt./3131-32 and AROK/Estt./90/2005/11109 are quashed. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per SRO-43 of 1994 within a period of two months on receipt of the copy of this order.