Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 538 (JK)

Sarwat Begum v. State

2010-10-21

Sunil Hali

body2010
1. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether legal heir/dependant on a Government servant can claim compassionate appointment when deceased employee's services stood terminated on the date he died. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is widow of the late Imtiaz Hussain, who was working in the Animal husbandry Department. His services were terminated on account of remaining un-authorized absence from duty with effect from 04.08.1985 to 10.08.1985. The said order was questioned by the petitioner's husband before this court in SWP No. 253/1999. This court while disposing of the same issued the following directions: "..This petition is accordingly, allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement. He would not be entitled to any back wages at this stage. He would start getting his wages with effect from the date he produces the copy of this order before the respondent-officer, who passes order of termination. Respondents are left free to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As to how the intervening period to be treated would depend upon the decision on which the respondent-authorities take in this regard. Let a copy of LPA No. 348/1997 be made available to the respondents. This petition is according allowed in the manner indicated above." 3. Consequent upon the order issued by this court, respondents vide order dated 22.04.2002 reinstated the petitioner's husband in the Government service as Poultry Server with effect from the date of termination i.e. 04.08.1985. 4. An application came to be filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 being widow of late Shri Imtiaz Hussain. Recommendation in this behalf is stated to have been made by the Chief Animal Husbandry Officer, Poonch on 23.04.2002. Vide communication dated 09.07.2002, Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu sought instruction from the Commissioner/Secretary to Government Animal/ Sheep Husbandry Department as to whether the widow of the employee is entitled for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 in view of the fact that her husband had died during the period his termination order was in force. The matter was finally settled by the respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 09.06.2003, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as the judgment was announced after the death of petitioner's husband. This, in essence, is the issue involved in this writ petition. The matter was finally settled by the respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 09.06.2003, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as the judgment was announced after the death of petitioner's husband. This, in essence, is the issue involved in this writ petition. Under SRO 43 of 1994, a family member dependant on a Government employee who dies in harness is eligible for such compassionate appointment. 5. The objections raised by the respondents are that at the time the petitioner's husband died his services were terminated and the order of reinstatement was passed after his death, as such, deceased was not a Government servant at the time when he died. 6. The stand of the respondents per se seems to be misplaced. The petitioner was terminated in the year 1985 and order of his termination was set aside in the year 2001. His reinstatement in the Government service was ordered with effect from the date of termination i.e. 04.08.1985. The termination order resulted in cessation of his relationship with the State Government. After termination order was set aside, the petitioner's status was restored with effect from 04.08.1985. Once status of the Government servant was restored with effect from 04.08.1985, his relationship as master and servant was also restored from the said date. The order of reinstatement has restored his status of Government servant retrospectively, as a result of which, his dependant became eligible for seeking appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. He was also entitled for the post retiral benefits, which is not an issue before this court in this writ petition. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was eligible, both in terms of qualification as well as age at the time when she made an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment. I say so because this issue has not been contested by the respondents in their objections. 8. In view of above, this petition is allowed and Order dated 09.06.2003 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 within a period of three weeks from the date copy of this order is received by them. 9. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP, if any.