1. One Lateef Ahmad Sheikh died while working as class IV employee in education department leaving behind petitioner, his unmarried sister and respondents 8 and 9, the widow and minor son. With their agreement the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 in his place who later got married and settled with her husband whereafter reportedly she stopped sharing her Salary with respondents 8 and 9 who accordingly complained before official respondents who in turn decided deducting half of petitioners salary for payment to respondents 8 and 9 till conclusion of enquiry reportedly initiated in the matter. 2. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner challenges the decision as reflected in impugned communications No. 480-84/SM/AC dated. 27.07.2006, No. 636-39/SM/AC dated 15.09.2006, No. 732-35/SM/AC dated 11.10.2006 and No. 766-69/SM/AC dated 11.11.2006 as being violative of the terms/conditions of her appointment on the ground that no such deduction could be ordered and seeks their quashment accordingly. The stand of private respondents 8 and 9 as projected by their counsel during threshold submissions of course without filing any written objections is that being dependants of the deceased employee they are equally entitled to be maintained out of petitioners salary etc. The counsel for official respondents also defends the impugned communications. 3. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Before coming to the controversy in hand it would be appropriate to observe that compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 is an arrangement devised by the Government to maintain the families of employees dying in harness for protecting them against vagaries of life, and hence a well concerned welfare-measure. Obviously, therefore, the object of providing employment thereunder appears to provide support to the dependants of deceased employee otherwise unable to maintain themselves by providing a job to the most eligible among them with a clear idea of having the family maintained through the employed individual. By implication, therefore, it follows that an obligation to maintain other dependants is essential to the very employment of the employed individual so long as other dependants become able to maintain themselves. Viewed thus, the condition of maintaining other dependants appears to be inherent in the very acceptance of employment by an individual under the aforesaid SRO from which he or she cannot run away under any cover for the simple reason that some would directly contravene the basis and substance of appointment on compassionate grounds. Viewed thus, the condition of maintaining other dependants appears to be inherent in the very acceptance of employment by an individual under the aforesaid SRO from which he or she cannot run away under any cover for the simple reason that some would directly contravene the basis and substance of appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. Viewed thus, the case in hand appears to be tilting towards private respondents because the petitioner who has admittedly married after getting the job has reportedly given up maintaining them which in view of what has been stated above is not in conformity with her obligations under the appointment as aforesaid. From annexures on record it percolates that petitioner was appointed way back in 1997 whereafter she got married and settled with her husband. Somewhere in 2004 she appears to have borrowed some amount of loan from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. in lieu whereof she has to part with more than Rs. 2000/- per month for repayment process, thereby reducing the amount which she otherwise would take home on account of monthly salary by Rs. 2000/- and other deductions, which must in all probability have persuaded her to reduce whatever amount she might otherwise have been paying to the private respondents who as such appears to be justified in their complaint against the same of which cognizance appears to have been taken by respondent/authorities rightly which culminated into the impugned communications, 5. On consideration I find that perhaps there was no alternative available to the authorities other than directing deductions of 50% of petitioners salary for payment to respondents 8 and 9 who admittedly are widow and minor child of deceased employee and as such duly entitled to be maintained from out of the salary of petitioner that she gets in lieu of her appointment essentially ordered for maintaining her and the respondents. That the petitioner has given up such maintenance simply speaks of callousness which she should not have exhibited particularly in case of the minor son of her deceased brother who has a long way to go before he gets anywhere near self sustenance. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with an observation that respondent/authorities shall speed up the pending enquiry and pass final orders in the matter. Nothing herein shall, however, prevent the parties to enter into some sort of compromise for settlement of the mater between themselves. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with an observation that respondent/authorities shall speed up the pending enquiry and pass final orders in the matter. Nothing herein shall, however, prevent the parties to enter into some sort of compromise for settlement of the mater between themselves. The writ petition stands accordingly dismissed alongwith Review petition No, 49 of 2007 as also the connected CMPs therein.