SUREKSHA RANI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER husband was employed as daily wage earner with State of Jammu and Kashmir. He has since died. His wife is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This is being sought under SRO 43 of 1994. Petitioner submits that she has submitted a representation. Copy of representation so submitted by her has been placed on the record. State counsel has put in appearance. It is stated that appointment is being denied on the ground that SRO 43 of 1994 would be applicable only to regular government employees. Merely because, husband of the petitioner was entitled to regularisation would not clothe her with requisite qualifications.

(2.) IN my opinion SRO 43 of 1994 merely talks of a person who is a government employee. It is not for the benefit of regular employees or temporary government employees alone. Petitioner husband was working on daily wages. He was performing duty in connection with affairs of state of Jammu and Kashmir. He would as such be entitled to the benefits of rules contained in SRO 43 of 1994 referred to above. As a matter of fact Chief Engineer Mechanical Engineering Department has made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Recommendations were made to the effect that husband of the petitioner who has rendered seven years of services and was entitled to regularisation, is held entitled to benefit of compassionate appointment.

(3.) IN Saroj vs. State of Haryana 1997(1) SCT 229, the widow of the deceased adhoc employee was seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This was denied on the ground that compassionate appointment can be granted only in case of death of an employee who is working on regular basis. This plea was rejected. The fact that deceased was entitled to seek regularisation was taken note of. The widow was held entitled to regularisation. The position in this case is similar. The petitioner is held covered by SRO 43 of 1994.