Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 342 (JK)

Gh. Mohd. Banday v. State

2009-07-17

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this court for commanding the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was eight years of age when his father died in harness. Thereafter the petitioner made claim for appointment in the year 1993. The petitioner was not eligible at the time of death of his father or in the year 1993 when he applied for such appointment. It is apt to reproduce Rule 3 of SRO 43, herein: "3. Appointment under these rules:- (1) Not withstanding anything contained in any rule or order for the time being in force regulating the procedure for recruitment in any service or posts under the Government, an eligible family member of a person specified in rule 2 may be appointed against a vacancy in the lowest rank of a non-gazetted service having qualification above Matriculation or to a class IV post if the candidate has read up to Matric. Provided that the applicant is eligible and qualified or acquires eligibility and qualification within a period of six months from the death of the deceased person specified in rule 2." 3. While going through the aforesaid rule, it is crystal clear that in order to seek appointment under SRO 43 of 1994, the petitioner/ candidate should have passed matriculation examination or read up to matric and attained the requisite age at the time of death of the deceased or should acquire such eligibility and qualification within six months from the death of the deceased. 4. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his deceased father and also in the year 1993. Thus was not eligible for appointment in terms of the above referred Rule. He has attained the age of 18 years in 1997, thus cannot be considered in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. I am fortified in my view by judgments of this court in cases titled Romesh Singh Vs. State of J&K, 2003 KLJ 103 and Mukhtar Ahmad Rather Vs. State and others (SWP No.399/2006) decided on 03.06.2008. 5. The employment on compassionate ground is given purely on humanitarian consideration and can not be claimed as a matter of right. It is only to save the dependents of the deceased employee from distress, vagrancy and destitution. State of J&K, 2003 KLJ 103 and Mukhtar Ahmad Rather Vs. State and others (SWP No.399/2006) decided on 03.06.2008. 5. The employment on compassionate ground is given purely on humanitarian consideration and can not be claimed as a matter of right. It is only to save the dependents of the deceased employee from distress, vagrancy and destitution. The petitioner and his family members survived till 1999 and the said purpose has come to an end. Apex Court in cases titled, Smt. Suchma Gosain & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors [(1989)4 SCC 468], Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) & anr. [(1994)2 SCC 718] State of Haryana & Ors. V. Rani Devi and Anr [(1996)5 SCC 308], Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi, 2002(10) SCC 246 and Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. V. K. R. Vishwanath [(2005)7 SCC 206] has observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 6. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 7. Apex Court laid down the same principle in case titled State of J&K & Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported as 2006 AIR SCW 3708 while setting aside the judgment of the Learned Division Bench of this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, there is no force in the petition which is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.