Gugli Kumari Vs. State of J&K and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (20 Dec 2019)
Fact of family’s sustenance for long-time is sufficient to deny compassionate appointment
In present case, Petitioner seeks quashing of order passed by Respondent No. 2 vide which her case for compassionate appointment was rejected. The husband of the Petitioner who was working as a Work Charge Employee in the office of Respondent No. 2 since 19th December, 1981, died on 2nd January, 1996. As her husband's services were not regularized therefore, the Petitioner sought regularization of his services.
Superintending Engineer, J&K PDC vide his letter requested Commissioner Secretary to Government, Power Development Department, J&K for regularization of services of the deceased w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 so that family of the deceased could receive pensionary benefits. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 27th December, 2000, and she is aggrieved of the order dated 26th April, 2002.
As per the Jammu and Kashmir compassionate appointment Rules, 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 24 day of September, 1991, Rule 3 of the said rules specially provides that, the applicant may be appointed against vacancy in the lowest rank of non-gazetted service provided that, the applicant is eligible and qualified or acquires eligibility and qualification within the period of six months from the date of death of deceased."
Thus, from the perusal of the order, it is clear that the services of the husband of the Petitioner were regularized after his death. The Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 27th December, 2000, after the regularization of the service of her husband, when she was already overage. The sole intention of framing Compassionate Appointment Rules was to provide immediate relief and sustenance to the dependents of the deceased and to ameliorate the economic distrust of the family of the deceased. The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, has held that, the very fact is that family had survive for longtime would be sufficient to deny such appointment.
This Hon'ble Court in 'State of J&K and others v. Ashiq Hussain Khan and others', while relying upon judgment 'Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others', has held that, compassionate appointment in is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The very fact that the family has survived for a long time would itself be sufficient to deny such appointment."
Since, the Petitioner was not eligible in terms of Rule 3 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, therefore, upper age was not relaxed in her favour. This apart the Petitioner, has then also been able to sustain herself and her family for over 20 years, as such, order does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no merit in this writ petition, as such, the same is dismissed.
Relevant : Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0701/1994; State of J&K and Ors. vs. Ashiq Hussain Khan & Ors. MANU/JK/0079/2012; Sanjay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. MANU/SC/0541/2000
Tags : COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT ELIGIBILITY TIME PERIOD