Srinagar, Apr 19: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar Friday held that the delay defeats the purpose of the appointments made on compassionate grounds, saying such appointments in keeping with the relevant policy should not be in a tardy way.
“If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way,” a bench of M S Latif, Member (J), said while deciding a related plea.
The tribunal observed that the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds is that the family of the deceased employee may not be placed in a position of financial distress and hardship so that the family is not compelled to live a life of penury and animal existence.
“Instances are there where for nearly two decades such applications are kept pending which consequently leads to the frustration of the policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service,” the tribunal said.
It said: “To achieve the purpose, such applications must be considered at the earliest point of time and the consideration must be fair, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations and it is only then and then the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.”
“If the purpose of compassionate appointment is to be achieved, then it is just necessary that such applications are considered well in time and such applications cannot be rejected based on frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case,” the court said while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Malaya Nanda Sethy versus State of Orissa arising out of SLP Civil No. 936/2022.
In her plea, one Shameema Akhter was seeking direction for the J&K government through its Commissioner cum Secretary to Government School Education Department and others to take the final decision on her claim for a compassionate appointment within the stipulated time against the post for which she was eligible and qualified in terms of the Recruitment Rules.
The case of the petitioner was that her husband came to be appointed as ReT in Government Medical School, Gangbugh vide order dated September 26, 2011, and was due for regularisation on September 26, 2016, and his case was under consideration for regularisation before the competent authorities.
The petitioner submitted that unfortunately, her husband passed away on October 11, 2017.
The petitioner said that the deceased left her along with a three-and-a-half-years-old daughter behind at the time of his death and as such, she was rendered without any source of livelihood.
“Under the J&K Compassionate Rules of 1994 dependent on a Government employee is entitled to appointment against a vacancy in the last rank of the non-gazetted service of Class-IV post and submits that the petitioner fulfils all the required qualifications and the norms as required under the rules,” argued petitioner’s counsel Faizaan Majid Bhat along with Aiman Barjees.
He submitted that the petitioner had already applied before the competent authorities vide her application dated December 7, 2017, along with all required documents.
“Since the husband of the petitioner has died in harness, the petitioner is entitled to appointment under Rule 3 of the J&K Compassionate Rules of 1994,” he said.
He submitted that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir vide its order dated November 2, 2011, had already granted a direction wherein respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of the applicable law and rules.
In his counter-argument, Government Advocate, Numan Malik, representing the respondents submitted that compassionate appointment could not be claimed as a matter of right.
“However, he admits that such a provision is to mitigate the sufferings of the family of a bread earner who dies in harness,” the court said.
The court disposed of the petition and directed the respondents to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment which reportedly is pending before the respondents.
It also directed the petitioner to submit all the necessary required documents if not already submitted before the competent authorities for taking an appropriate and quick decision in the matter which, it said, would be in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy versus the State of Orissa.