Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat vs State Of J&K; And Others on 29 March, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat vs State Of J&K; And Others on 29 March, 2018

Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur

                   HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                             AT SRINAGAR


SWP No.1545/2017
MP No.01/2018
                                                         Date of order: 29.03.2018

Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat              v.                  State of J&K & Ors.

Coram:
       Hon'ble Mr Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge

Appearance:

For the petitioner(s)     :   Mr H. Furrahi, Advocate.
For the respondent(s)     :   Mr M. A. Beigh, AAG.

i)    Whether approved for reporting in                Yes/No
       Law journals etc.:
ii)   Whether approved for publication
       in press:                                       Yes/No

01. Petitioner claims compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 on account of the death of his father, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, in militancy related action in the year 1994 when the petitioner was only about 2 years old.

02. Case of the petitioner appears to have been considered but rejected and instead cash compensation amounting to Rs. 04 lakhs has been sanctioned. The petitioner not being satisfied has filed the present petition seeking certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16th January, 2017 whereby cash compensation has been ordered to be paid instead of appointment as sought by the petitioner.

03. Response has been filed by the respondents wherein a stand is taken that petitioner was not eligible for appointment in terms of SRO 43 as he did not fulfill the prescribed age and academic qualification.

SWP No.1545/2017 Page 1 of 2

04. Rule 3(1) of SRO 43 of 1994 reads as under: -

"3. Appointment under these rules: - (1) Not withstanding anything contained in any rule or order for the time being in force regulating the procedure for recruitment in any service or posts under the Government, an eligible family member of a person specified in rule 2 may be appointed against a vacancy in the lowest rank of a non-gazetted service having qualification above Matriculation or to a class IV post if the candidate has read upto Matric:

Provided that the applicant is eligible and qualified or acquires eligibility and qualification within a period of six months from the death of the deceased person specified in rule 2."

05. According to SRO 199 of 2008 dated 04.07.2008 an amendment was incorporated in Rule 3 of SRO 43 extending the period of acquiring eligibility to one year from 6 months. Yet again in the year 2014, SRO 43 of 1994 was again amended by virtue of SRO 177 dated 20.06.2014 and the period of acquiring qualification was raised from one year to five years.

06. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1994 on which date the petitioner was only two years old. Assuming that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of rule 3 as amended in 2014, still the petitioner did not satisfy the condition of acquiring requisite qualification within five years. In those circumstances, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the official respondents and cash compensation ordered to be paid.

07. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar 29.03.2018 Abdul Qayoom, PS SWP No.1545/2017 Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench