SURAYA AKHTER Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The short controversy involved in this petition is that whether the writ petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of SRO 43, on the grounds that his father who was a daily wager died before his services were regularized by the department. It appears that father of petitioner was working in the Department of Public Health Engineering as daily wager and his case was pending adjudication for regularization, however, his services were regularized after his death.

(3.) Petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment within time in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, but respondents have deaf ear constraining the petitioner to file writ petition.