LAWS(J&K)-2024-5-36

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On May 01, 2024
MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MIR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved of order dtd. 20/11/2018, passed by Managing Director, J&K State Handloom Development Corporation, Jammu-respondent No. 2, vide which, their claim for compassionate appointment came to be rejected.

(2.) As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, fathers of petitioners No. 1 and 2, who were working in the respondent-department as Class-IV employees, passed away in the years 2007 and 2002 respectively. Petitioners applied for compassionate appointments, after the demise of their fathers. Respondent No. 2 furnished the requisite information regarding compassionate appointment of four persons, including petitioners, to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu vide his No. HDC/Per/857/73-74 dtd. 17/4/2017. It is case of the petitioners that while other two persons, namely, Zahida Kousar and Poshi Devi came to be appointed by the respondents, their claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. According to the petitioners, one Miss Fahimun Nisa was also appointed as Sales Assistant in the respondent-Department vide Order No. HDC/Adm/663/023-32 dtd. 6/6/2011. Allegation of the petitioners is that respondents have adopted a policy of pick and choose for appointments on compassionate basis which is not permissible in law.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention that claim of the petitioners came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that SRO 43 of 1994 is not applicable to respondent-Corporation and since fathers of petitioners died 11 and 16 years ago respectively and petitioners are respectively 35 and 36 years of age, there seems no element of compassion in their cases. Case of the petitioners has also been rejected on the ground that respondent-Corporation is running in losses and it cannot afford to make new appointments. According to the petitioners, since respondents have already made appointment of other persons in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, they cannot be treated differently and discriminated against.