The Bold Voice of J&K

Compassionate appointment can’t be claimed or offered after crisis is over: HC



JAMMU: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that compassionate appointment is not meant to substitute the regular employment and cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period of time. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future, as the object is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of sole bread earner and accordingly, it can safely be concluded that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
The present writ petition is filed by way of third round of litigation, wherein the petitioner has called in question the order impugned bearing No. Adm/NG/04/57/6024-26 dated 20.10.2011 issued by the Director, Horticulture Department, Jammu by virtue of which, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the department. Besides, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider his case for appointment as Class-IV employee on compassionate grounds. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that father of the petitioner was a Class-IV employee of the Horticulture Department, who was murdered on 19.07.1989 while he was in active service. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the mother of the petitioner was illiterate, so she did not apply for her appointment on compassionate grounds and at that relevant point of time, the petitioner was also a minor, so he too did not apply for the same. The further case of the petitioner is that after attaining majority and eligibility, he immediately applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Death in harness) Dependents Rules 1989 notified vide SRO 194 of 1989. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents including the dependent certificate before the respondents. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal after hearing both the sides observed that it is settled preposition of law that the compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of recruitment and the petitioner having sought appointment on compassionate grounds after 26 years is neither covered under rules or the spirit/object of the scheme for compassionate appointment and the order of rejection, as such, is perfectly legal, justified and inconsonance with the rule in vogue. “Order of rejection which is impugned in the present writ petition has been issued pursuant to the decision taken by the administrative department and opinion rendered by the Law Department which is justified, based on correct legal position and cannot be faulted as it is an interpretation of relevant applicable rules. Accordingly, I uphold the order dated 20.10.2011, issued by the Director, Horticulture Department, Jammu,” the Court observed.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :