Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 241 (JK)

Rajni Jamwal v. State

2016-04-30

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner seeks consideration of her case in terms of SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 for compassionate appointment being the wife of late Surinder Singh, who had been held to be entitled for appointment as a Driver in the Health Department vide judgment and order dated 20.8.2014. Grievance of the petitioner is that her deceased-husband had applied for the post of Driver in the Health Department and despite the fact that he was more meritorious than other candidates, he was denied appointment on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving licence. 2. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner challenged his non-selection in SWP No. 1342/2011, which was decided by the writ court vide judgment and order dated 20.8.2014 whereby the writ court held him entitled, being possessed of a valid licence and further that he was more meritorious than Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the said writ petition and, thus, also held to possess a better right for appointment to the post of Driver in the Health Department. 3. What was stated in the above judgment in paragraphs 14 and 15 is reproduced as under:- "14. Be that as it may, the petitioner did possess a valid licence in regard to driving heavy good's vehicle as per endorsement dated 8.12.1999. He was also possessed of the qualification prescribed in terms of advertisement notice (supra) and being more meritorious than Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, thus, has a better right for appointment for the post of Driver. 15. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 23.6.2011 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with merit within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. 4. Unfortunately, after the pronouncement of the judgment (supra) dated 20.8.2014, husband of the petitioner passed away on 5.6.2015. However, by that time no appointment order was issued in his favour. 4. Unfortunately, after the pronouncement of the judgment (supra) dated 20.8.2014, husband of the petitioner passed away on 5.6.2015. However, by that time no appointment order was issued in his favour. It is in this background that the petitioner (widow of the deceased) has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking her consideration for appointment on the ground that since the husband of the petitioner had been held to be entitled for such an appointment, her case be considered on the basis thereof. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that compassionate appointment under SRO 43 can only be invoked by the family members of a Government employee, who dies in harness and since her husband was not a Government employee, therefore, there was no question of considering her case for such an appointment in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994. 6. The right of a person to seek compassionate appointment under SRO 43 being a family member of the deceased, who was not a Govt. employee but in whose favour a right to appointment had accrued has been settled in case titled Sureksha Rani v. State of J & K, 1999 KLJ 24 : JKJ Soft JKJ/11530 wherein the court observed as under: "In my opinion SRO 43 of 1994 merely talks of a person, who is a Government employee. It is not for the benefit of regular employees alone. Petitioner's husband was working on daily wages. He was performing duty in connection with affairs of State of Jammu and Kashmir. He would as such, be entitled to the benefit of rules contained in SRO 43 of 1994 referred to above." 7. The aforementioned case (supra) was subsequently followed in Safia Begum v. State & Ors., 2010 (1) JKJ 251 [HC] : JKJ Soft JKJ/24937. 8. Since the right of the petitioner's husband, who had passed away on 5.6.2015 before the judgment could be implemented in his favour, to appointment had already been crystallized in SWP No. 1342/2011 decided on 20.8.2014, his wife-petitioner herein has every right to be considered for compassionate appointment in his place in accordance with rules. 9. This petition is accordingly allowed. Since the right of the petitioner's husband, who had passed away on 5.6.2015 before the judgment could be implemented in his favour, to appointment had already been crystallized in SWP No. 1342/2011 decided on 20.8.2014, his wife-petitioner herein has every right to be considered for compassionate appointment in his place in accordance with rules. 9. This petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is served on them. Disposed of accordingly along with connected applications.