Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 40 (JK)

Sheela Kumari v. State

2009-02-06

SUNIL HALI

body2009
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking her appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. The husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Finance Department. He died in harness. Petitioner claims her appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the aforementioned SRO. 2. This Court while considering the writ petition directed the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with SRO 43 of 1994 by relaxing her age. The exercise to be undertaken with regard to the appointment of the petitioner had to be completed within a period of three months from the date the copy of the order was made available by the petitioner to the respondents. 3. Thereafter, respondent-State filed Letters Patent Appeal against the said order. Division Bench allowed the appeal on 22-11-2002 on the ground that the respondents, who were not heard before passing the aforementioned order shall be heard. The reply filed by the respondents before the Division Bench was transferred to the Writ Court for consideration. This fact is confirmed by the order passed by this Court on 24-12-2002. On this date the petition was admitted to hearing. 4. Nobody is present today on behalf of the respondents, as such, they are set ex-parte. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband had died in harness and she was eligible to be considered for appointment under SRO 43. It is further stated that under Rule 7 of SRO 43 the Government has powers to relax the age limit. Admittedly, the petitioner was overaged at the time, she made the application for her appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. 6. The respondents in their reply have stated that case of the petitioner for relaxation of age has been rejected. According to the respondents, no ground exists for relaxation of the age bar in favour of the petitioner. No reason has been given in the reply as to why the application has been rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled for being considered for appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. She had completed all the formalities which were required to be done under rules before seeking such appointment. She has also obtained justification certificate under SRO 43. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled for being considered for appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. She had completed all the formalities which were required to be done under rules before seeking such appointment. She has also obtained justification certificate under SRO 43. This certificate reflects that the petitioner would be responsible for all assets left by her deceased husband. The daughters of the petitioner were not be eligible for appointment, as they were minors at that time. It is the petitioner only who could be considered for such appointment. The reason for not relaxing the age of the petitioner is not disclosed in the reply affidavit. Respondents state that the case of petitioner was considered on merit and it was found that it is not a case of age relaxation. 9. It is an admitted principle of law that even while exercising the discretion, the reasons have to be indicated. The respondents have powers under the statute to reject the claim of the petitioner but it had to be followed by the reasons. Since the respondents have not chosen to appear in the Court, as such record of the case could not be produced by them. 10. The relaxation of age would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The object of providing compassionate appointment under SRO 43 is to provide succor to the family who has lost his bread earner. These appointments are made in violation of the recruitment rules. These appointments are exception to the general mode of recruitment. Underlying objective of SRO 43 is that a person, who have lost their lone bread earner, cannot be expected to wait for regular appointment. In my opinion the respondents have to take a liberal view in this matter looking into the circumstances, in which the family lost their only bread earner. It seems to be have not been done. I, therefore, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with SRO 43 by relaxing the age limit. Let this exercise be conducted within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is received by the respondents. It seems to be have not been done. I, therefore, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with SRO 43 by relaxing the age limit. Let this exercise be conducted within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is received by the respondents. The petitioner would be entitled for fixation of notional seniority for purposes of pension from the date she had filed application for grant of compassionate appointment. However, she will not be entitled to any arrears in this account. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP (s) if any.