GHULAM AHMAD WANI Vs. U.T. OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Altaf Ahmad Wani, who was serving as a constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police died in harness on 25/9/2013 in a militant attack leaving behind his wife, namely, Shagufta Nazir, respondent no. 5 herein, parents and unmarried sister. The Government offered the respondent no. 5 appointment as teacher in the School Education Department on compassionate grounds in terms of J and K Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, issued vide SRO 43 of 1994. The petitioners herein i.e. parents and sister of the deceased Government employee felt aggrieved by the conduct of respondent no. 5, who, as per the petitioners, after obtaining appointment on compassionate grounds neglected to take care of other dependents of the deceased employee i.e. the petitioners herein.

(2.) The petitioners filed SWP No. 426/2016 and sought inter alia a direction to the official respondents to appoint one among the eligible petitioners on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994. The respondent no. 5 appeared in the petition, but instead of contesting the petition on merits, conceded to pay 50% of her salary and pension of the deceased to the petitioners. A compromise deed in this regard was executed between the petitioners of one part and respondent no. 5 of the other part on 11/7/2017. The respondent no. 5 voluntarily undertook to share fifty percent of her monthly salary and fifty percent of the pension and other post-retiral benefits with the petitioners.

(3.) On the basis of this compromise arrived at in the light of statement of the respondent no. 5 recorded before the Registrar Judicial of this Court, SWP No. 426/2016 was disposed of on 2/8/2017. The parties, as this court is given to understand, adhered to the aforesaid compromise for some time till respondent no. 5 contracted second marriage/remarried. As a result of remarriage, the respondent no. 5 lost her right to family pension. The family pension, which the respondent no. 5 was receiving, came to be released in favour of the parents of the deceased i.e. petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is also brought on record that not only the family pension is being paid to the petitioners but the petitioners were also beneficiaries of pay arrears on account of 7th Pay Commission Revision to the extent of approximately Rs.10.00 lacs. With this change in circumstances, the respondent no. 5 stopped paying 50 percent of her monthly salary to the petitioners.