Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 27 (JK)

Yasmeena Begum v. Deputy Commissioner

2022-02-07

SINDHU SHARMA

body2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER : 1. The petitioner was married to one Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh in the year 2002, who was killed by the terrorists in the year 2008. The deceased was survived by his wife-petitioner herein, his father-Mohd. Shahban, mother-Hanifa Begum, brother-Bashir Ahmed and daughter-Sanay. After the unfortunate death of Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh, the family of the deceased approached the respondent No. 1 - Deputy Commissioner, Ramban for grant of compassionate appointment to a member of the family under SRO-43 (Militancy Related Relief). 2. The petitioner submitted a dependent certificate issued by the then ACR Ramban on 05.09.2008 whereunder all the aforesaid members of the family were reflected as legal heirs of the deceased-Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh. The petitioner being educated family member with the consent of the other family members, was given compassionate appointment and appointed as class-IV post created in the Revenue Department in District Ramban vide Government Order No. 585-GAD of 2008 dated 24.04.2008. 3. The father and the younger brother of the deceased died due to natural and accidental death respectively. The petitioner also subsequently remarried to one Farooq Ahmed Katoch of resident of Ramsoo and she alongwith her daughter started residing with him. 4. The mother of the deceased-Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh (respondent No. 2) approached Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, seeking maintenance from the petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of her son. She has submitted that after the death of her husband and both her sons, she is unable earn her livelihood due to ill health and has no adequate means to look after herself. It was also submitted by her that the petitioner had separated from the family and remarried and is not looking after her despite the fact that respondent No. 2 being mother of deceased Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh was dependent upon her. According to respondent No. 2, the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate grounds only to provide for the needs of the family of Manzoor Ahmed and that including respondent No. 2 and she has no source of income to maintain her, as such, requested for sustenance to be provided to her. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramban vide order dated 27.07.2015 directed that an amount of 25% from the gross salary of the petitioner monthly be deducted and deposited in the account of mother of the deceased i.e., respondent No. 2. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramban vide order dated 27.07.2015 directed that an amount of 25% from the gross salary of the petitioner monthly be deducted and deposited in the account of mother of the deceased i.e., respondent No. 2. Relevant extract of the order reads as under:- "Keeping in view the above facts and Mst. Hanifa Begum being a legal dependent. It is hereby ordered that 25% of monthly Gross salary of Mst. Yasmeen Begum Class IV shall be deducted and deposited in the account of Mst. Hanifa Begum Mother of deceased (Mother in-law of employee) in tune with the spirit of compassionate appointment. The amount shall be paid through invoice". 6. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.07.2015 in the present petition of deduction of 25% from her monthly gross salary as the same according to her is arbitrary. It is submitted that the petitioner was not liable to maintain respondent No. 2 and otherwise also, respondent No. 2 used to trouble her and she was not having good relation with her. Respondent No. 2 also did not give her due share in the ancestral land. The petitioner has subsequently remarried and now has three more daughters, therefore, it is difficult for her to maintain and educate her four daughters after deductions made in terms of the said order dated 27.07.2015. It is further submitted by her that respondent No. 2, otherwise also, has ample means to maintain herself as she has orchard of 15 Kanals of land and this apart, she also received claim of Rs. 7 lacs in accidental claim petition being legal heir on the death of her son-Bashir Ahmed, therefore, the petitioner urged that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and thus, is required to be set aside. 7. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order dated 27.05.2015 after more than 06 years. There is no explanation put forth by her for the delay in questioning the aforesaid order when she had no objection to deduction made or the amount being paid to the respondent No. 2 for last six years. 8. The very scheme of compassionate appointment was to provide employment to one of the family members to sustain the entire family and provide succour to them and to enable them to sustain themselves after the death of earning member of the family. 8. The very scheme of compassionate appointment was to provide employment to one of the family members to sustain the entire family and provide succour to them and to enable them to sustain themselves after the death of earning member of the family. Respondent No. 2, being mother of deceased-Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh, was dependent upon him for her sustenance. It is only after the death of her husband and her younger son, that she had approached respondent No. 1 for providing her sustenance which she could not afford due to her ill health. 9. The petitioner who was granted compassionate appointment with the consent of the family members to look after the needs of her family, was bound to maintain the family members of deceased-Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh especially his aged mother being the only surviving dependant, who was in need and required assistance being unable to maintain herself. 10. Similar question was considered in Rehana Azeem vs. State & Ors. 2007 (2) JKJ 575 [HC] in which this Court has held as under:- "I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. Before coming to the controversy in hand it would be appropriate to observe that compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 is an arrangement devised by the Government to maintain the families of employees dying in harness for protecting them against vagaries of life, and hence a well concerned welfare-measure. Obviously, therefore, the object of providing employment thereunder appears to provide support to the dependants of deceased employee otherwise unable to maintain themselves by providing a job to the most eligible among them with a clear idea of having the family maintained through the employed individual. By implication, therefore, it follows that an obligation to maintain other dependants is essential to the very employment of the employed individual so long as other dependants become able to maintain themselves. Viewed thus, the condition of maintaining other dependants appears to be inherent in the very acceptance of employment by an individual under the aforesaid SRO from which he or she cannot run away under any cover for the simple reason that some would directly contravene the basis and substance of appointment on compassionate grounds". 11. Similarly in Premlata Acharya versus Suman Acharya & Ors. 11. Similarly in Premlata Acharya versus Suman Acharya & Ors. 2018 (14) SCC 655 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of maintaining children of the deceased, whose wife was given compassionate appointment and had subsequently remarried after leaving her children in the care of her father, it was held that it was the duty of the widow, who got compassionate appointment to maintain the children of the deceased and in addition to family pension, 50% of the salary was also directed to be paid to those children. 12. The respondent No. 2 being mother of the deceased was entitled to be maintained by the petitioner who was provided employment only on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has assailed the order impugned almost after six years and in terms of the aforesaid order, 25% was being deducted from her salary and being paid to respondent No. 2. The petitioner was given employment only because she was wife of the deceased-Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh and since her remarriage, she had stopped maintaining respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 1 keeping in view the scheme of compassionate appointment had rightly directed deduction of 25% amount from gross monthly salary of the petitioner and paid the same to the aged mother of the deceased-Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications. Dismissed.