1. The petitioner's husband, namely, Romesh Singh came to be selected and appointed as a Driver by a selection committee constituted pursuant to Govt. Order No. 104-CAPD of 2003 dated 8.12.2003 w.e.f., 1st of September, 2004 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2,000. 2. This engagement was for a period of one year, which subsequently came to be extended from time to time. It appears that on account of his continued working along with other similarly situate employees in the department, a process was initiated for the purposes of regularization of the service of such employees. Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary to Government, General Administration Department (Vigilance) submitted a vigilance clearance in regard to 55 persons including the husband of the petitioner herein. However, before the services of the petitioner could be regularized, he died in harness on 21.12.2011. 3. The petitioner herein pursuant to her husband's death applied under SRO 43 seeking compassionate appointment in the department of CAPD on the ground that there was financial distress in the family of the deceased Romesh Singh. 3.1 However, the said application was rejected by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department, CAPD vide letter No. CAPD/Estt/12/2012 dated 11-04-2012 by a simple order that the case of the petitioner was rejected as not being covered under Compassionate Appointment Rules. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while challenging the order impugned stated that the same was a non-speaking order and, therefore, was bad on the face of it. He further urged that the rejection of the case for compassionate appointment was illegal inasmuch as even when the deceased-Romesh Singh was not a regular employee in the department of CAPD, yet since a right had accrued to him for seeking regularization along with others similarly situate, the petitioner upon her husband's death would get a right of appointment in terms of SRO 43 after his death. 4. Reference is made in this regard to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in case Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K & ors. as reported in 2003(II) SLJ, 475, 2003 (4) JKJ HC-93. Paragraph 30 of this judgment is relevant and reproduced as under: "30. There is yet another category of persons who were legal heirs of those who were entitled to regularization but were not so regularized. The legal heirs of such employees can seek compassionate appointment. as reported in 2003(II) SLJ, 475, 2003 (4) JKJ HC-93. Paragraph 30 of this judgment is relevant and reproduced as under: "30. There is yet another category of persons who were legal heirs of those who were entitled to regularization but were not so regularized. The legal heirs of such employees can seek compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment some times is not allowed on the plea that concerned employee is not governed by SRO 43/94. In this regard, it would be apt to notice that SRO 43/94 makes use of the word "Government Servant" and therefore, even a casual or adhoc employee would fall under this category for the purposes of compassionate appointment. Such a person seeking compassionate appointment where the deceased had rendered 7 years of service and was entitled to the benefit of regularization, then the legal heirs of such a person would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment on the assumption that the deceased would have been regularized. A formal order would have to be passed in favour of an employee in such a case. Such a situation has been considered in the case of Saroj v. State of Haryana, 1997 (1) SCT 229. The widow of the deceased adhoc employee was seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the above case. This was denied on the ground that compassionate appointment can be granted only in case of death of an employee who is working on regular basis. This plea was rejected. The fact that deceased was entitled to seek regularization was taken note of and the widow was held entitled to regularization. Similar view was taken by this court in the case of Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, 1999 KLJ 24 . This aspect of the matter would accordingly be taken note of and even in the Case of those employees who were entitled to regularization but were not regularized, the claims of their legal heirs would be considered as and when such application is preferred by them seeking compassionate appointment." 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the bare provisions of SRO 43 and urged that the benefit of compassionate appointment would be given only to the family members of a regular employee, who dies in harness and further that such a benefit is available to persons working on adhoc, casual or consolidated basis. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the bare provisions of SRO 43 and urged that the benefit of compassionate appointment would be given only to the family members of a regular employee, who dies in harness and further that such a benefit is available to persons working on adhoc, casual or consolidated basis. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. From the facts of the present case, in the light of the present judgment of Division Bench of this court, it is seen that the deceased-Romesh Singh came to be appointed as a Driver after undergoing due process of selection committee constituted vide Govt. Order dated 8th of December, 2003. The deceased continued, as such, Driver on consolidated basis for a period of more than seven years when he died in harness on 21.12.2011. 8. The question that arises is as to whether by the time of petitioner's husband death, the right was vested with the deceased of getting regularized on regular basis in the department of CAPD. 9. It is pertinent to make a reference in this regard to the provisions of Civil Services (Special Provisions), Act, 2010. Section 3 of the aforementioned Act clearly envisages the application of the Act to persons appointed on adhoc, contractual or consolidated pay basis, provided that such appointments have been made against the clear vacancies. Section 5 of the Act, inter alia, envisages that a person working on. consolidated basis shall be regularized on fulfillment of certain conditions, most important of which is, that he should have completed seven years of service as such on the appointed date. 10. Proviso to Section 5 further envisages that any such adhoc, contractual or consolidated appointee, who has not completed seven years of service on the appointed date shall continue as such till completion of seven years and shall thereafter be entitled to regularization under the Act. So, on the reading of the aforementioned proviso, it becomes clear that the deceased Romesh Singh, who had completed seven years by the time of his death, had a right of seeking regularization as a Driver in the department of CAPD. 11. In terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner would therefore, have a right to seek consideration for (appointment on compassionate basis in terms of SRO 43. 11. In terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner would therefore, have a right to seek consideration for (appointment on compassionate basis in terms of SRO 43. The order impugned clearly being non-speaking, does not at all go into these issues and is contrary to the ratio of the Hon'ble Division Bench's judgment of this court. The order impugned is, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43. Let an appropriate order be passed within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. 12. Disposed of accordingly.