Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 474 (JK)

Ranjit Singh v. State of J&K

2015-09-04

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of deceased-Surjeet Singh, who died as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department in April 1992 while in harness. The petitioner, who was a minor at that time, upon attaining majority applied for compassionate appointment under the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1991 notified vide SRO 283. The case of the petitioner was recommended even before the petitioner had attained majority by none else than the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramban Forest Division, in its letter dated 10.6.1992 addressed to the Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle Jammu wherein it was recommended that the case of the petitioner would be considered for compassionate appointment as and when he became eligible for appointment under rules. 2. Objections have been filed to this writ petition wherein it was stated that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered in terms Rule 3 of SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, which provides as under: "Appointment under these Rules .......... Provided that the applicant is eligible and qualified for such post or acquires such eligibility and qualification within a period of one year from the date of death of the deceased person specified in Rule 2 .................." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that the provisions as contained in Rule 3 of SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1994 were prospective in operation and would not apply to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as in the present case, the death of the petitioner's brother had occurred in 1992, at which time, SRO 43 was not at all in operation. He further urged that the case of the petitioner had to be governed by the provisions of the rules, governing compassionate appointment at the relevant time. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The issue as to whether the provisions of SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1994 are applicable retrospectively to the family of an employee, who seeks compassionate appointment in case the employee had died before coming into force of the SRO 43, is no longer res integra. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The issue as to whether the provisions of SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1994 are applicable retrospectively to the family of an employee, who seeks compassionate appointment in case the employee had died before coming into force of the SRO 43, is no longer res integra. 6. This Court in Kumar Shiv Satya Narayan v. State of J&K and others, reported as 2013 (II) SLJ 552, 2013 (1) JKJ 454 [HC], has held that SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1994 had no retrospective operation and did not extinguish the rights that have already accrued to a person under the repealed rules. 7. In the aforementioned judgment, reliance was placed on a catena of judgments including Gurdeep Singh v. The Haryana State Electricity Board, 1997(4) SCT 833 (P&H), Smt. M. Reddamma v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 1997 (3) SCT 86, A. Ksheera Sagar v. A.P. Dairy Development Corp. Fed. Ltd., 1997(3) SCT 515, Sushma Gosain and ors. V. Union of India and ors., AIR 1989 SC 1976 , Saroj v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (1) SCT 229 and Dharam Pal v. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1996(2) SCT 300 and held that legal heirs of a deceased-employee had a right of appointment as per the policy existing at the time of death of the employee and that in case the person seeking compassionate appointment was minor at the time of death of the government employee, he would be entitled to compassionate appointment on attaining majority and in such cases, the only inquiry that was required to be conducted was as to whether the family of the deceased employee continued to be in hardship and whether compassionate appointment was required to mitigate such hardship. 8. Following the above mentioned judgment of this Court, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the rules prevailing at the time of death of the government employee, the brother of the petitioner. Let requisite orders be passed within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the respondents. Disposed of accordingly.