SAJAD AHMED MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Shabir Ahmad Mir, was a Lineman in Power Development Department of the State who died on 6 -3 -1987. Petitioner, son of the said deceased lineman, applied for compassionate appointment in September. 1991. His case was put up by respondent no 4 to respondent no. 3 who in turn endorsed and recommended his case further to respondent no. 2 who on his part recommended case to Administrative Department -with request for appointment after relaxation of qualification and age bar (Annexure B, C, D, E and F.. However, respondent no. 1 through Additional Secretary to Government PDD, informed Development Commissioner (Power. Jammu, that the case is not covered by SRO 43 and this communication was conveyed to officer down the line with informing them that petitioners case has not been approved. The matter was again taken up by the Executive Engineer (Annexure J&K. and by the Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer (Annexure L&M. with the Civil Secretariat Power Development Department the Administrative Department of J&K FDD. The Administrative Department on examination of the matter informed the Chief Engineer that the case for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been turned down by the Administrative Department in 1996 which decision has been already communicated to all concerned in July, 1996 (Annexure - N.. This communication is impugned in the petition. This decision of turning down petitioners claim for compassionate appointment is challenged on the ground that though the petitioner was under age and had not required qualifications for such appointment, but all the same the government has the powers to relax the both age and qualification bar which has not been done in petitioners case. Though, he applied within time, but due to the inaction and lapse of the respondents his case has not been settled so far as relaxation of age and qualification bar is concerned, notwithstanding positive recommendation of the lower rung officers of the department. Petitioner is the only legal heir of his deceased father who died in harness while serving the Power Development Department. A right has accrued to the petitioner for such appointment before his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. Long period has been taken to decide the claim and inordinate delay has been taken in rejecting the petitioners claim. This ground perse for sought compassionate appointment entitles him to appointment. He should not have made to suffer for bureaucrat inaction.

(2.) IN reply respondents have set up the counter case that the petitioners request and claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the administrative Department (FDD of J&K Govt. Civil Sectt. Jammu/ Srinagar., while administrative department in early 1966 and the petitioner was informed of the decision taken in March. 1996 itself. Petitioner has not challenged this decision in the writ petition. The petitioners compassionate appointment case again came before the Administrative Department (Power Development Commissioner..

(3.) ON examination of the matter, the compassionate appointment case of the petitioner was turned down by Administrative Department and the decision communicated to Chief Engineer Maintenance and R&Wing Srinagar on 12 -7 -96 as reiterated in the communication dated 8 -6 -1999 (Annexure R2. and through proper channel it was also conveyed to Executive Engineer and the petitioner. No right of petitioner is violated. His case for compassionate appointment has not been approved and the decision of turning down of sought appointment on compassionate grounds was conveyed to the concerned as early as on July, 1996 Therefore, the prayer of petitioner for consideration of the matter is not warranted in so far as the petitioners case stood considered, decided and rejected.