GOWHAR NAZIR MALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner, namely Nazir Ahmed Malla working as Sr. Assistant in the office of respondent No.4 died in harness on 10/12/2008 leaving behind, apart from the petitioner, following legal heirs:

(2.) The deceased during her lifetime had contracted two marriages. The first wife of the deceased, who was mother of the petitioner and his sister Mahvesh Tabassum, had already died and from the second marriage of the deceased employee with one Mst. Misra, Gowhar Nazir son and Rafiqa Nazir daughter were born. In this way, the deceased Nazir Ahmed Malla left behind as many as four legal heirs. After the death of Nazir Ahmed Malla and by way of consensus, it was decided that petitioner would apply for compassionate appointment under the J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 ["Rules of 1994"] issued vide SRO 43 of 1994.

(3.) After completing all the requisite formalities, the case of the petitioner was processed as is evident from the communication of Assistant Registrar in the Chief Justice"s Secretariat bearing No. 6876/PSY-581 dtd. 27/1/2009. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis in place of his deceased father Nazir Ahmad Malla was, however, not accepted by the respondents. Vide letter No. 2480/PSY dtd. 29/5/2009 issued by Joint Registrar in the Chief Justice"s Secretariat, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Budgam was informed that the petitioner was minor and, therefore, could not be considered for compassionate appointment, nor could he be recommended for relaxation of lower age limit. The petitioner, who, at the time of death of his father, was minor, however, attained majority in the year 2011-12. He submitted yet another application to the respondents for compassionate appointment stating therein that he had attained majority and, therefore, eligible under rules. The request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment came under consideration of the respondents, but, as is evident from the communication of Deputy Registrar in the Chief Justice"s Secretariat bearing No. 2869/PSY-96 dtd. 7/4/2012 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, his case was again rejected on the ground that he was supposed to acquire prescribed eligibility within stipulated period in terms of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. The respondents, therefore, refused to reopen the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. A decision in this regard was conveyed by the Deputy Registrar in the Chief Justice"s Secretariat to the Principal District Judge Budgam vide communication No. dtd. 18/7/2012. This is how, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his case for compassionate appointment has filed the instant petition.