Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 462 (JK)

Chuni Lal v. State

2009-09-23

Sunil Hali

body2009
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Village, Chapnari Tehsil, Doda was attacked by the militants, wherein 26 people were killed including brother of the petitioner namely, Kuldeep Kumar. Claiming dependant on the deceased, the petitioner sought his appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43/1994. It reveals that requisite certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Doda, which found him eligible for being appointed on compassionate grounds. It also reveals from the record that recommendation was made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Doda for relaxation of qualification bar in favour of the petitioner for being employed as Class IV employee. 3. It seems that respondent no. 1 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that case of the petitioner was examined and it was found that at the time of the death of the deceased, father of the petitioner was of 45 years of age and it cannot be said that he was dependant on his brother. This, in essence is the objections of the respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that petitioner was eligible for being considered on compassionate grounds after his brother was killed by the militants. As per the definition of family under SRO 43 of 1994, family members who are eligible for compassionate appointment means spouse, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, sister and brother. Recommendation clearly reveals that petitioner is eligible and entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds, subject to the condition that he satisfies the condition of prescribed age limit. Under Rule 7 of Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, the Government may relax the lower or upper age limits or educationally/ technical qualification as the case may be in deserving cases, which relaxation is to be granted and processed through General Administration Department. Recommendation has already been made to the General Administration Department in this regard, who for the reasons indicated above has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. Objection of the State Government cannot be sustained on the ground that since his father was 45 years of age and it cannot be said that petitioner is dependant on his brother. There is nothing on record to suggest that income of the family members is more than 5000/- per month. 5. Objection of the State Government cannot be sustained on the ground that since his father was 45 years of age and it cannot be said that petitioner is dependant on his brother. There is nothing on record to suggest that income of the family members is more than 5000/- per month. There is no material on the record which suggests that the father of the petitioner was gainfully employed. Presumption has been drawn that the petitioner is dependant on his father. First thing which is to be seen is as to whether he was gainfully employed or dependent on his deceased son. Since his father could not claim employment under SRO 43/1994, it is the petitioner who can alone be entitled for such claim. 6. Other aspect of the matter is that petitioner does not possess requisite qualification for which his case had already been referred to General Administration Department for relaxation of qualification bar which has been reflected from the record. The petitioner has placed various Government orders bearing No. 555-60/IR/D, Order No. 627-30/IR/D Order No. 549-54/IR/D, Order No. 603-7 /IR/D, Order No. 603-7, Order No. 608-13/IR/D and Order No. 591-96 dated 14.8.1999, whereby relaxation in respect of age limit and qualification bar has been granted to the similarly situated persons for being appointed as Class-IV. The petitioner's case has been rejected on this ground. Before seeking employment his qualification is required to be relaxed for which recommendation was already made vide communication dated 21.12.2006. Accordingly, I hold that petitioner is entitled and eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground under rules. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 23.02.2007 is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the relaxation of qualification bar in favour of the petitioner on the same analogy as has been done in favour of the similarly situated persons mentioned in the orders (supra). Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is received by the respondents. 8. The respondents will submit compliance report in this behalf. Registry to maintain index of the file. List on 15.12.2010.