Per Virender Singh, J. COD No. 35/2013: State is aggrieved of Writ Court Order dated 31-08-2012 passed in SWP No.1577/2011, as such accompanying LPA No. 43/2013. Since there is a delay of 93 days in filing the appeal, therefore, COD No. 35/2013 seeking condonation of the said delay in which Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of non-applicant/writ petitioner. He has no objection to urge against the condonation of delay sought. His statement is taken on record. Apart from that, we are of the view that the applicant/State Ninety-three (93) days in filing LPA No. 43/2013, as such, condoned. COD No. 35/2013 stands disposed of accordingly. LPA No. 43/2013: 1. Since Mr. Amin has accepted the notice in the main appeal also, we take it for consideration. 2. Respondent-Masarat Gull (hereinafter to be referred to as `petitioner') filed SWP No. 1577/2011 seeking Writ of Mandamus, commanding the appellant/State (respondent before the Writ Court) to consider her case for Compassionate Appointment in terms of J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules (SRO 43 of 1994) and appoint her against any available vacancy. State resisted the writ petition vis-a-vis her appointment only on the ground that her case was duly considered in terms of rules, but approved for cash compensation only in terms of SRO 199 dated 4th of July, 2008, as such rejected her claim for appointment into Government job, instead directed payment of cash compensation vide communication dated 10th of February, 2010 made by Deputy Secretary to Government, General Administration Department (For short GAD) to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, appellant No. 2 herein which was challenged by the petitioner vide SWP No. 1577/2011. 3. The petitioner asserted before the Writ Court that, in terms of SRO 199 dated 4th of July, 2008, the person, who seeks compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, has to opt either for Government Service or for cash compensation and once she had not opted for cash compensation and put forth her claim for Government Service only, the said relief could not be denied to her on the touchstone of SRO 43 of 1994. It was further urged by the petitioner that the Government has already issued appointment orders in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 even in relaxation of age bars in favour of some of the persons after coming into being SRO 199 dated 4th of July, 2008, whereas her case has been singled out. 4. The writ Court, while referring to the relevant provisions of SRO 199 dated 4th of July, 2008 which have to be read along with SRO 43 of 1994, ultimately, directed the appellants to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, strictly in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 with a further direction to do the needful within a said Judgment, the State is before us through the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Heard Mr. Kawoosa, learned Sr. AAG and Mr. Amin, appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the writ court record, minutely. 6. Mr. Kawoosa submits that complying with the directions as contained in the impugned Judgment would open flood gates of already settled cases under SRO 199 dated 4th of July 2008 as in many cases of this nature, Government has chosen to pay the cash compensation, instead of adjusting the applicants into Government job and it would be very difficult for the Government to resist such like claims. 7. Mr. Kawoosa then submits that the petitioner under rules was entitled to seek consideration only, which in her case has been duly accorded and the Government chose to give her cash compensation, instead of adjusting her in any Government service. Therefore, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot ask for the said relief. He further submits that SRO 199 dated 4th of July, 2008 provides that if any one among the family members of the deceased civilian fulfils the eligibility criteris Government Service within one year from the date of death of the deceased person he/she shall have the option either to choose the Government Service or the cash compensation and in the case of the petitioner, even if she did not acquire the eligibility criteria, still she was accorded cash compensation. This aspect, according to Mr. Kawoosa, has not been appreciated by the learned Writ Court. This aspect, according to Mr. Kawoosa, has not been appreciated by the learned Writ Court. He submits that the petitioner, when at the first instance, knocked at the door of this Court through the medium of SWP No. 321/2007, seven years had already gone by after the death of her brother, yet in terms of order dated 06-12-2007 passed in the aforesaid writ petition (SWP No. 321/2007) her case was brought within the ambit of SRO 43 of 1994 and a sympathetic approach has been extended towards her by granting cash compensation in terms of SRO 199 of 2008, instead rejecting her case out-rightly, whereas adjusting the petitioner in Government Service at such belated stage would be against the basic object and purpose of the Scheme. 8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kawoosa has relied upon a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled "Local Administration Kumaravelu", reported as AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1880." 9. Mr. Kawoosa, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned order of learned Writ Court contending that the petitioner has no case as prayed for. 10. Per Contra, Mr. Amin, while refuting the arguments advanced by Mr. Kawoosa submits that, none of the pleas is available to the appellant-State as it is the State, who had been sleeping over the matter all through right from December 2007, for three years and ultimately itself found the petitioner to be entitled for the relief under SRO 43 of 1994, and then refused to adjust her into Government Service, instead offered cash compensation which was not acceptable to her, whereas the Government has already issued appointment orders in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 in favour of thirty (30) similarly situated persons by relaxing the qualification bar and other relaxations, that too, after coming into being SRO 199 of 2008. 11. To strengthen his submissions, Mr. Amin has taken us to Government Order No. 1630-GAD of 2009 dated 19-11-2009 available on page No. 17 of the paper book of the instant appeal and submits by the State without there being any reason. He, thus, while supporting the impugned Judgment, prays for dismissal of the instant appeal at this stage itself. 12. To strengthen his submissions, Mr. Amin has taken us to Government Order No. 1630-GAD of 2009 dated 19-11-2009 available on page No. 17 of the paper book of the instant appeal and submits by the State without there being any reason. He, thus, while supporting the impugned Judgment, prays for dismissal of the instant appeal at this stage itself. 12. One very relevant aspect worth noticing in the case at hand is that, admittedly, the petitioner is not found lacking her eligibility under SRO 43 of 1994, rather it is considered by the State in terms of that said Scheme read with SRO 199 of 2008 which came to being in July, 2008. Admittedly, it is part of SRO 43 of 1994. It needs to be mentioned here that the case of the petitioner has been considered in terms of the directions to the State as contained in the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition (SWP No. 1577/2011) which came to be disposed of on 31-08-2012 wherein time frame of three months was also fixed. The State, instead of taking appropriate decision within the stipulated period, slept over the matter and in the mean time, SRO 199 of 2008 came into being. In terms of said SRO, Rule 3 of Appointment Rules, 1994, after sub rule (2), the following has been inserted as sub rule (3): "Notwithstanding the provisions of the rules contained herein for compassionate appointment, the family members of the civilians killed in militancy related action as specified in clause (iii) of rule 2 shall be entitled to a cash compensation in lieu of appointment in government service of an amount specified by the government which shall be payable in their favour in a manner to be notified by the Government. Provided that if any one among the family members of the deceased civilian fulfils the eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules for appointment into the Government Service or acquires such eligibility within one year from the date of death of the deceased person, then they shall have the option either to choose the Government Service or the cash compensation". 13. Admittedly, when the case of the petitioner has already been considered under SRO 43 of 1994, the issue of delay of seven (7) years in filing the earlier writ petition (SWP No. 321/2007) renders inconsequential. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. 13. Admittedly, when the case of the petitioner has already been considered under SRO 43 of 1994, the issue of delay of seven (7) years in filing the earlier writ petition (SWP No. 321/2007) renders inconsequential. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. Kawoosa on the point of delay and laches, at the end of the petitioner, on the strength of Local Administration Department's case (supra) would be of no advantage to him, being distinguishable on facts. 14. Being that the position in the case at hand, the next question now crops up is with regard to option to be exercised by the beneficiary. Bare reading of the aforementioned proviso attached to sub rule (3) as inserted vide SRO 199 of 2008 makes it clear that it is the beneficiary who has to opt either for Government job or cash compensation and not the State. In short, the State cannot thrust an option of cash compensation on beneficiary as is done in the present case in terms of communication dated 10th of February, 2010 made by Deputy Secretary to Government, GAD to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag which was not accepted by the petitioner and thrown to challenge. 15. We are also alive to the arguments advanced by Mr. Kawoosa that giving appointment to the petitioner into Government Service would open flood gates of settled cases under the aforesaid SRO, but, in our considered view, he would not be in a position to strike his view point home as the Government itself by its order No. 1630-GAD of many as thirty candidates in relaxation to the qualification bar and other relaxations for their appointments against class-IV posts. This exercise has been done much after coming into being SRO 199 of 2008. What is the good reason for not considering the case of the petitioner for her appointment into Government Service has not been spelt out. Why the petitioner has been singled out, we cannot just understand. Even if we assume, whereas it is not borne out from the record that all the aforesaid cases were considered as one time exception, still the petitioner's case was also similarly situated. Therefore, the aforesaid argument of Mr. Kawoosa, in our view, merits rejection. 16. Why the petitioner has been singled out, we cannot just understand. Even if we assume, whereas it is not borne out from the record that all the aforesaid cases were considered as one time exception, still the petitioner's case was also similarly situated. Therefore, the aforesaid argument of Mr. Kawoosa, in our view, merits rejection. 16. For ready reference, we feel it appropriate to reproduce the names of all the thirty candidates who have been given Government service in relaxation to the qualification bar and other relaxations in terms of proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 OF 1994: S.No. Name of Candidate Relaxation granted 1. Mohd. Hussain Khan s/o Gh. Mohd. Khan & late Raja R/o Devipora, Anantnag Qualification bar. 2. Mohd. Ashraf Mir Gojer s/o Mohd. Amin Mir Gojar B/o late Gulzar Ahmad Mir R/o Sallar, Pahalgam i. Rs Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 ii. Qualification bar. 3. Mst. Tawseef Gull D/o Gull Mohd. Bhat Sister/o Late Javaid Ahmad Bhat R/o Opzan, Bijberara i. Rs Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 ii. Qualification bar. 4. Mohd. Arif Shah s/o Late Mohd. Afzal Shah r/o Akingam, Anantnag Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 5. Istiyaq Hussain Shah s/o late Ab. Rashid shah r/o Nambal, Mattan i. Rs Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 ii. Qualification bar. 6. Mst. Fahmeeda Wd/o Late Gh. Qadir Bhat r/o Sundbrari, Anantnag Qualification bar. 7. Mst. Rohiya Jan d/o Gh. Mohd. Malik Sister/o late Khurshed Ahmad Malik r/o Palpora, Dialgam Qualification bar. 8. Nazir Ahmad Rather s/o late Abd. Razak Rather r/o Khandipahari, Anantnag Qualification bar. 9. Bashir Ahmad Chopan s/o Mohd. Ramzan Chopan b/o late Tariq Ahmad Chopan r/o Thamankoot, Dooru i. Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 ii. Qualification bar. 10. Nazir Ahmad Khatana s/o Abdullah Khatana b/o late Farooq Ahmad r/o Batakoot, Pahalgam Qualification bar. 11. Massrat Jan d/o Gh. Qadir Bhast wd/o Zahid Nabi Bhat r/o Batagund Dooru Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 12. Fayaz Ahmad Wagay S/o Late Ab. Rahim Wagay R/o Kanganhall, Anantnag Qualification bar 13. Shabir Ahmad Bhat S/o Gull Mohd. Bhat Brother of Late Shakeel Ahmad Bhat R/o Nowpora, Anantnag Qualification bar 14. Mst. Rafiqa D/o Mohd. Akbar Magray Wd/o Late Bashir Ahmad Magray R/o Sheikhpora, Anantnag Qualification bar 15. Gulzar Ahmad Wagay S/o Lal Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad Wagay S/o Late Ab. Rahim Wagay R/o Kanganhall, Anantnag Qualification bar 13. Shabir Ahmad Bhat S/o Gull Mohd. Bhat Brother of Late Shakeel Ahmad Bhat R/o Nowpora, Anantnag Qualification bar 14. Mst. Rafiqa D/o Mohd. Akbar Magray Wd/o Late Bashir Ahmad Magray R/o Sheikhpora, Anantnag Qualification bar 15. Gulzar Ahmad Wagay S/o Lal Mohd. Wagay Brother of Late Nisar Ahmad Wagay R/o Godole Kukernag i. Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994 ii. Qualification bar. 16. Zahoor Ahmad Pathan S/o Late Ab. Rashid Pathan R/o Reshi Bazar, Anantnag. Qualification bar 17. Tawheeda Sultan D/o Mohd. Sultan Mir Qualification bar 18. Younis Ahmad Ahanger S/o Ab. Ahad Ahanger B/o Late Khursheed Ahmad Ahanger R/o Checki Jummoo Qualification bar 19. Zahid Ahmad Sheikh S/o Late Khazir Mohd. Sheikh R/o Panchpora, Bijbehara i. Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. ii. Qualification bar. 20. Peerzada Ab. Qayoom S/o Peerzada Mohd. & Late Bazira Begum R/o Nathipora, Dooru Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. ii. Qualification bar. 21. Mushtaq Ahmad Cheechi S/o Late Gh.Mohi-ud-din Cheechi R/o Hardukichroo Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. ii. Qualification bar. 22. Manzoor Ahmad Shergogery S/o Late Nund Shergogery R/o Rakh Chandipora, Pahalgam Qualification bar 23. Mst. Hajara D/o Mohd. Ramzan Wagay Wd/o Late Mohd. Ahsan Padder R/o Kharpora, Anantnag Qualification bar 24. Fayaz Ahmad Wagay S/o Late Bashir Ahmad Wagay R/o Bindoo Zalangam, Anantnag Qualification bar 25. Aejaz Ahmad Shah S/o Mohd. Hussain Shah B/o Late Zahoor Ahmad Shah R/o Matihindoo, Anantnag Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. ii. Qualification bar. 26. Mst. Aisha Wd/o Mohd. Ashraf Ganie R/o Seer Hamdan, Anantnag Qualification bar. Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. 27. Irshad Majied Mir S/o Ab. Majied Mir B/o Late Mohd. Yaseen Mir R/o Laddi, Pahalgam Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. 28. Mst. Fahmida Akhter D/o Peer Nizam-ud-din Din Wd/o Late Peer Mukhtar Ahmad R/o Soafshali, Kokernag Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. 29. D/o Mohd. Akram Wani Wd/o Mohd. Maqbool Wani R/o Brenti Batpora, Anantnag 30. Nazir Ahmad Magray S/o Late Sonaullah Magray R/o Taragam, Dooru Qualification bar 17. 28. Mst. Fahmida Akhter D/o Peer Nizam-ud-din Din Wd/o Late Peer Mukhtar Ahmad R/o Soafshali, Kokernag Proviso to Rule 3(i) of SRO 43 of 1994. 29. D/o Mohd. Akram Wani Wd/o Mohd. Maqbool Wani R/o Brenti Batpora, Anantnag 30. Nazir Ahmad Magray S/o Late Sonaullah Magray R/o Taragam, Dooru Qualification bar 17. Viewed thus, even if the petitioner has already crossed the age limit, her case can still be considered by the State within the Mandate of SRO 43/1994 as already directed by the Writ Court, may be an exceptional case. 18. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned Judgment calling for our indulgence. The net result is that the appeal at hand stands dismissed being devoid of any merit in it. 19. IA (C) No. 36/2013 also stands disposed of. 20. To be fair to the State, we grant some more time of thirty (30) days to do the needful which will run from 20th of May, 2013.