news details |
|
|
| HC directive in compassionate appointment case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu Sept 12:High court judge Janak Raj Kotwal today held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground that the deceased had not been regularised at the time of his death.
Petitioner Veena Devi's husband Sat Paul was engaged in the department as a daily wager on April 1, 1993. He, however, expired prior to his regularization on March 30, 2001. His wife then applied for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. The Chief Engineer, Electric Maintenance and R E, Jammu, vide his April 26, 2005 communication recommended her case to the government. Appointment, however, was not provided to her. Plea taken by the respondents was that benefit under SRO 43 was not available to her as her husband had died prior to his regularization, and therefore, he was not a regular government servant as at the time of his death.
After hearing the petitioner's counsel, Justice Kotwal said the plea that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment for the reason that her husband was not a regular government servant as at the time of his death would not have been available to the respondents had he been regularized in his life time after he attained entitlement to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 on completion of seven years' period as a daily wager in 2000. "There is no justification in refusing compassionate appointment in a case where right to regularization had accrued to the petitioner's husband 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. That apart, this court in Sureksha Rani's case in a 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," he said. Justice Kotwal, while allowing the petition, observed that petitioner, who 'claims to be the wife of the deceased, could not be denied compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 on the ground that her husband had not been regularized by the time of his death. He directed the respondents to finalize the case of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment and issue appointment order without any further delay, subject to the fulfillment of other eligibility criteria under SRO 43. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
