JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Whether widow of Government Employee who dies in harness or looses his life in militancy related incident, appointed on companionate grounds in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994, notified vide SRO 43 of 1994 would loose her appointment on her re-marriage is the question raised in the present petition. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner tragically lost her husband namely Mushtaq Ahmad Ganaie, a few years after her marriage, when he fell victim to bullets, in a militancy related incident. She, sometime after unfortunate accident approached respondents with application for appointment as Class IV Employee in terms of J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994 notified vide SRO 43 of 1994, read with SRO 211 of 1995. 2. Pending consideration of her claim, she was engaged as Class IV employee in the respondent Department on Ad hoc basis. However her application for appointment on compassionate ground, found favour with the Authorities. Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag after proper verification vide Order No. 078/CA/Misc of 2006-2007, dated 10th November 2006, appointed petitioner as Class IV Employee in Health Department District Cadre, Anantnag. She was vide No. PHC/S/381-83 dated 17th January 2006 posted her at Block Medical Office, Sailor. 3. Sometime after petitioner was appointed, a complaint was received by respondent alleging that petitioner had contracted second marriage. The complaint prompted Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, to terminate services of petitioner vide Order No. 194-98/CA dated 29th October 2007. The termination order is questioned in petition on hand on the ground set out in the petition. 4. The respondents in their replay have admitted petitioner's claim. However, it is pleaded that as the deceased was survived not only by petitioner but also parents and her minor son and petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds to provide relief to entire family of decease, it was not open to petitioner to re-marry. It is stated that petitioner in the said background has acted against very spirit of provisions of SRO 43 of 1994, while contracted second marriage and therefore not to retain her job. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 6. It is stated that petitioner in the said background has acted against very spirit of provisions of SRO 43 of 1994, while contracted second marriage and therefore not to retain her job. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 6. Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, do not saddle dependent of a Government Employee appointed on death in harness of such employee, with the responsibility to maintain his other dependents, or provide that his/her failure to maintain other dependents would be at the cost of his/her appointment. However, General Administration Department has issued instructions vide Circular No. 27-GAD of 2013, dated 25th September 2013, inter alia requiring concerned Department/Deputy Commissioner to ask for an undertaking from the applicant (appointee), to the effect of taking care of all the dependents and affidavits of all the dependents indicating No Objection to applicant's appointment under SRO 43 of 1994". While the duty of appointee under SRO 43 of 1994 to take care of all the dependents of the deceased Government Employee, can be located in the aforementioned Circular, loss of employment in case of failure to take care of all the dependents is not provided under Rules or the Circular. There are other tools, short of dismissal/termination that can be used to ensure that the Circular to said extent is adhered to. The Rules and Circular do not prohibit re-marriage of a widow appointed under SRO 43 of 1994 or provide that her marriage would be at the cost of her appointment. The respondents therefore lacked power to order petitioner's termination on the ground that she had remarried. This apart the impugned order offends Article 14, 16 and 21 Constitution of India inasmuch as it infringes petitioner's right to equality, equal right in matter of employment under government and right to take a decision regarding her life--an integral component of right to life and personal liberty. So much about validity of the impugned order, now let us proceed to examine whether the order has been passed in accordance with Rules and petitioner afforded an opportunity to put forth her stand. 7. The termination order impugned in the petition, has been passed without affording petitioner an adequate and reasonable opportunity to put forth her stand before the competent Authority. 8. 7. The termination order impugned in the petition, has been passed without affording petitioner an adequate and reasonable opportunity to put forth her stand before the competent Authority. 8. A bare look at the order impugned in the petition would reveal that the order impugned is based on discreet enquiry made by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. Petitioner was obviously kept unaware of complaint received and material collected against her. In the event, petitioner was afforded an opportunity to put forth her stand, she would have been able not only to dispute the averments made in the complaint but also to plead that in the event, it was proved that she had remarried she was not to loose her appointment made on compassionate grounds. 9. This apart, petitioner because she is appointed on compassionate grounds within the meaning of J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994 notified vide SRO 43 of 1994, cannot be deprived of right to pick thread after tragic demise of her husband, and start her life afresh. Once a person is found to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, he/she in terms of rules, is bound to maintain other dependents of the deceased. The Salary that comes from such appointment is to be shared with other dependents of family of deceased. They cannot be left high and dry as they depended on the deceased-the only bread winner of the family. 10. In the present case, it was not that the petitioner contracted second marriage with intention to abandon the other dependents of the deceased including her minor son or refused to maintain them. The widow appointed on compassionate grounds would have a right to remarry without prejudice to the rights and interests of other dependents of the deceased. Remarriage will not disentitle petitioner from the benefits that came to her in the wake of appointment under compassionate grounds. 11. In the circumstances, it was obligatory on the author of the order impugned in the petition, to find out whether petitioner's remarriage was to result in the abandonment of her minor son and other dependents of the deceased petitioner. In the said background, petitioner though under obligation to maintain dependents of deceased husband including her minor son, yet may remarry without avoiding to perform her obligations that she accepted to perform at the time of her appointment. 12. In the said background, petitioner though under obligation to maintain dependents of deceased husband including her minor son, yet may remarry without avoiding to perform her obligations that she accepted to perform at the time of her appointment. 12. The order impugned in the petition therefore is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 Constitution of India and cannot stand legal scrutiny. Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed and order No. 194-98/CA dated 29th October 2007, issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag is set aside. 13. Resultantly, petitioner not working with the respondent Department as on date, is directed to be allowed to resume her duty forthwith. The respondents would be free to hold an enquiry into the matter, afford petitioner and dependents of deceased an adequate and reasonable opportunity to put forth their stand and decide the period with effect from the date of order till she resumes duty having regard to outcome of such enquiry.