JUDGMENT Late Ghulam Rasool Dar, father of the petitioner, was serving as Head Constable under belt No. 31/AWP in the respondent department and died in harness in the year 2001. 2. Petitioner possesses M. Sc. de­gree, had applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of the 1994 against the post of Sub Inspector. The respondent No. 4, after considering his case, informed IGP, Kashmir that he can be given the post of Constable (Op­erator), in case he is willing to join, written consent be obtained. Petitioner had resisted the same but he was in­formed vide communication dated 08.07.2002 that he can only be consid­ered for the post of Constable in J&K Police, in case he is not willing for the post, then he will forfeit his claim un­der SRO 43. Finally vide order No. 836 of 2002 dated 09.12.2002, issued by Superintendent of Police, Telecom, Kashmir Range Srinagar, petitioner has been appointed as Constable Op­erator in J&K Police Telecom Organi­zation against clear vacancy in the pay scale of Rs. 2750-70-3000-75-4400 plus usual allowances as admissible under rules. 3. Petitioner accepting the appoint­ment has joined but after a gap of five years, from the date of his appoint­ment, has filed the instant petition claiming consideration for being ap­pointed as Sub Inspector under SRO 43 on parity basis as, according to him, respondent No. 7 (Miss Shaista Azhar Mughal) has been appointed, in relax­ation of Service Rules, as ASI. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a communication addressed by AIG(P) for Director Gen­eral of Police to Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department, dated 21.06.2002, wherein names of six per­sons have been quoted, amongst whom four have been appointed as Sub In­spectors, one as Assistant Sub Inspec­tor of Police and one as Inspector of Police but it has been qualified that amongst said six persons, the fathers of serial No. 1 and 2 and brother of se­rial No. 3 got killed in militancy related incidents whereas father of serial No. 4 got killed in a road accident and noth­ing is said about serial Nos. 5 and 6. 5. 5 and 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appoint­ment) Rules, 1994, the Government in its discretion has power to appoint a candidate to a higher post in the non-gazetted service if he or she is family member of a deceased Government employee or a civilian killed in the militancy related actions. In the in­stant case, father of the petitioner has died in harness so the compassionate appointment case of the petitioner is governed by sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 which provides that an eligible family mem­ber who dies in harness shall be en­titled to the appointment as against a vacancy in the lowest rank of a non-gazetted service or to a class IV post if the candidate has read up to Matric. 6. Respondent No. 7 (Miss Shaista Azhar Mughal) has been appointed un­der SRO 43 in relaxation of height and age as ASI because her father was killed in a militancy related incident, so she has been rightly given appoint­ment in accordance with Rule3(2) of the Compassionate Appointment Rules. 7. So far as six persons, as figure in communication dated 21.6.2002, are concerned, one person figuring at se­rial No. 4 has been appointed as ASI under SRO 43 when his father, who was an employee of the respondent de­partment, got killed in road accident, his case was also required to be dealt with under Rule 3(1) i.e. he was not entitled to the appointment as ASI. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend it is a discrimination, therefore, petitioner should have been considered at par with the said person. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled parity on the basis of benefit given to Shri Sohit Trikha who figures at se­rial No. 4 in the communication re­ferred to above dated 21-06-2002 which is not permissible because that ap­pointment appears to be inconsistent with Rule 3(1) of the said Rules which has not been challenged. 9. Law is law and has to be followed in its strict sense. If in breach of rules a person has been given any benefit, that does not entitle a similarly situ­ated person to the same treatment on parity basis. Parity can be claimed only against a benefit which is legally avail­able not otherwise. 10. 9. Law is law and has to be followed in its strict sense. If in breach of rules a person has been given any benefit, that does not entitle a similarly situ­ated person to the same treatment on parity basis. Parity can be claimed only against a benefit which is legally avail­able not otherwise. 10. The case of the petitioner has been correctly considered in accor­dance with Rule 3(1) of the Compas­sionate Appointment Rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994. 11. Viewed thus, this petition, being without merit, is dismissed along with connected CMP. __________