Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 452 (JK)

Veena Devi v. State

2016-09-08

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : JANAK RAJ KOTWAL, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner's husband. Sat Paul, was engaged in the respondent-department as a Daily Wager on 01.04.1993. Vide Order No. CEJ/DPC-11/56 of 2004 dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure D) he was regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. He, however, had expired prior to his regularization on 30.03.2001. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. The Chief Engineer, Electric Maintenance and R.E. Jammu-herein respondent No.3 vide communication dated 26.04.2005 recommended her case to the Government. Appointment, however, has not been provided to her, Plea taken by the respondents is that benefit under SRO 43 is not available to the petitioner for the reason that the deceased had died prior to his regularization and therefore, he was not a regular government servant as at the time of the death. 3. Mr. S.K. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased husband of the petitioner having been engaged as Daily Wager on 01.04.1993, the right to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 had accrued to him on completion of 7 years continuous period as such in March, 2000. Learned counsel would say that the right to regularization had accrued to the deceased prior to his death and he was, therefore, regularized, though posthumously vide order dated 30.12.2004. Learned counsel argued that right to regularization having accrued in the life time of the deceased, benefit under SRO 43 of 1994 to his wife cannot be denied. In addition, Mr. Anand argued also that benefit of compassionate appointment under SRO 43 cannot be denied to the legal representatives of even one, who was not a regular government employee. Mr. Anand relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K & ors. 1999 KLJ, 24 and a Punjab and Haryana High Court in Saroj v. State of Haryana and ors. 1997(1) SCT, 229. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned Additional Advocate General urged that right to compassionate appointment is available only to a dependent of a regular government servant and therefore, was not available to the petitioner as her husband was not a regular government servant as at the time of his death. 5. 1997(1) SCT, 229. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned Additional Advocate General urged that right to compassionate appointment is available only to a dependent of a regular government servant and therefore, was not available to the petitioner as her husband was not a regular government servant as at the time of his death. 5. In terms of Rule 8 of SRO 64 of 1994 right to regularization accrued to all those daily rated workers/work charged employees, who had been engaged prior to the cutoff date, on completion of 7 years' continuous period of working as such daily rated workers/work charged employees. It is also settled by a learned Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors. v. Maharaj Krishan Bhat and ors. 2004 (II) SLJ 612 that such regularization shall take effect from the date the post against which regularization is made is created/sanctioned. 6. The deceased, Sat Paul, died on 30.03.2001. Regularization of the deceased was made posthumously vide order dated 30.12.2004. As to why the regularization of the deceased got delayed after completion of seven years period as a daily wager has not been explained. Nonetheless, regularization was not denied, even though the deceased in the meantime had died. 7. The plea that the petitioner is not entitled to Compassionate appointment for the reason that the deceased was not a regular Government servant as at the time of his death would not have been available to the respondents had the deceased been regularized in his life time after he attained entitlement to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 on completion of seven years' period as daily wager in the year 2000. There is no justification in refusing compassionate appointment in a case where right to regularization had accrued to the deceased Government servant prior to his death, particularly so when such regularization has been ordered posthumously. This view is supported by the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Saroj's case (supra). That apart, this Court in Sureksha Rani's case (supra) in a fact situation akin to that in this case has rejected the similar plea of the State holding that benefit under SRO 64 of 1994 is not for the benefit of regular employees or temporary Government employees alone and that the "petitioner's husband was working on daily wages. That apart, this Court in Sureksha Rani's case (supra) in a fact situation akin to that in this case has rejected the similar plea of the State holding that benefit under SRO 64 of 1994 is not for the benefit of regular employees or temporary Government employees alone and that the "petitioner's husband was working on daily wages. He was performing duty in connection with the affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He would as such be entitled to benefit of Rules contained in SRO 43 of 1994". 8. Viewed thus, petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the deceased, cannot he denied compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 on the ground that her deceased husband had not been regularized by the time of his death. This writ petition, therefore, has strong merit and is allowed. Respondents are directed to finalize the case of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment and issue appointment order without any further delay, subject, however, to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria under SRO 43 of 1994. Let this judgment he complied with within eight weeks after petitioner produces a copy of this judgment in the office of respondent No. 3. 9. Disposed of.