REHANA AZEEM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Lateef Ahmad Sheikh died while working as class IV employee in education department leaving behind petitioner, his unmarried sister and respondents 8 and 9, the widow and minor son. With their agreement the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 in his place who later got married and settled with her husband whereafter reportedly she stopped sharing her Salary with respondents 8 and 9 who accordingly complained before official respondents who in turn decided deducting half of petitioner's salary for payment to respondents 8 and 9 till conclusion of enquiry reportedly initiated in the matter.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby the petitioner challenges the decision as reflected in impugned communications No. 480 -84/SM/AC dated. 27.07.2006, No. 636 -39/SM/AC dated 15.09.2006, No. 732 -35/SM/AC dated 11.10.2006 and No. 766 -69/SM/AC dated 11.11.2006 as being violative of the terms/conditions of her appointment on the ground that no such deduction could be ordered and seeks their quashment accordingly. The stand of private respondents 8 and 9 as projected by their counsel during threshold submissions of course without filing any written objections is that being dependants of the deceased employee they are equally entitled to be maintained out of petitioner's salary etc. The counsel for official respondents also defends the impugned communications.

(3.) VIEWED thus, the case in hand appears to be tilting towards private respondents because the petitioner who has admittedly married after getting the job has reportedly given up maintaining them which in view of what has been stated above is not in conformity with her obligations under the appointment as aforesaid. From annexures on record it percolates that petitioner was appointed way back in 1997 whereafter she got married and settled with her husband. Somewhere in 2004 she appears to have borrowed some amount of loan from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. in lieu whereof she has to part with more than Rs. 2000/ - per month for repayment process, thereby reducing the amount which she otherwise would take home on account of monthly salary by Rs. 2000/ - and other deductions, which must in all probability have persuaded her to reduce whatever amount she might otherwise have been paying to the private respondents who as such appears to be justified in their complaint against the same of which cognizance appears to have been taken by respondent/authorities rightly which culminated into the impugned communications,