Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Shameema Bano vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 29 October, 2022
S. No. 76
Before Notice Matters
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA NO. 207/2022
CM No. 5969/2022
Shameema Bano
.....Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. G. M. Shah, Adv.
V/s
UT of J&K and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge
ORDER
29.10.2022
1. The appellant has called into question the judgment and order dated
19.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2047/2022
whereby the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record as
well as the ground sof appeal
3. It appears that father of the appellant had died somewhere in the year
2008 whereafter the appellant made an application for grant of
compassionate appointment before the respondents. The claim of the
appellant was rejected by the respondent Department on 09th
September 2011
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
continued to pursue the matter before the respondents but her claim
Page |2
LPA NO. 207/2022
CM No. 5969/2022
was not being considered by them. It is further contended that
ultimately vide Communication dated 27.12.2021, the respondents
conveyed to the appellant that she does not fall within the definition
of dependants in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. Learned counsel has
submitted that as per the ratio laid down by a Single Bench of this
Court in case titled Mst. Shabeena Khan Vs. Director, SKIMS and
another (SWP No. 856/2019) decided on 31.01.2022 even a married
daughter qualifies to be a dependant for the purpose of SRO 43 of
1994 and therefore the appellant was well within her right to knock
the doors of the writ court by filing writ petition in the year 2022,
challenging the action of the respondents.
5. A perusal of the record shows that initially the claim of the appellant
was rejected by the respondents on 09.09.2011 and it was observed
that the appellant does not fall within the definition of dependant in
terms of SRO 43 of 1994. The same view has been reiterated by the
respondents through the medium of Communication dated
27.09.2021. So it is not a case where the appellant's claim has been
rejected by the respondents on 27.12.2021 but it is a case where his
claim stood rejected way back in the year 2011.
6. The appellant slept over the matter for 11 long years and knocked the
doors of this Court only in the year 2022. Mere assertion on the part
of appellant that she continued to pursue the matter with the
respondents agitating her claim would not come to her rescue. It has
been rightly observed by the learned writ Court in the impugned
Page |3
LPA NO. 207/2022
CM No. 5969/2022
order that the compassionate appointment is required to be provided
to the dependants of the deceased employee at an earliest so as to
enable them to tide over financial crisis. It is not necessary that after
a lapse of more than a decade, the financial crisis would continue to
prevail in the family. The very purpose of the Scheme is to enable the
family of a deceased employee to provide immediate relief to the
dependants of the deceased. The fact that the appellant has survived
this crisis, otherwise, disentitles her from claiming compassionate
appointment.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the
judgment passed by the writ court. The appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) (Sanjay Dhar)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
29.10.2022
"Aasif"
