Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Nov 24: High Court today passed strictures against General Administration Department for denying compassionate appointment to the sister of a youth, who was killed by the militants, and directed for consideration of the case within a period of two months.
According to the petitioner—Rubeena Akhtar, her brother namely Showkat Ahmad Ganai, son of Mohi-ud-Din Ganai of Anantnag was killed by the militants on November 5, 1999 and accordingly she applied for the compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994.
However, the General Administration Department refused to consider the appointment on the ground that the case was not covered under SRO-43.
The matter remained pending with the respondents for almost a decade and in the meanwhile in the year 2009 the petitioner was married as Khananisheen daughter meaning thereby that she continued to live with her parents.
Thereafter, the respondents found that since the petitioner has married her dependency factor is no more there as such her claim at this belated stage cannot be allowed.
This led to filing of petition in the High Court seeking directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment or in the alternate to grant cash compensation of Rs 5 lakh in favour of the family members of the deceased.
After hearing Advocate Bilal Ahmad vice Advocate S A Makroo for the petitioner and Senior AAG J A Kawoosa for the respondents, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey observed, “the ground ascribed for denial of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner is untenable and not supported by law or facts”.
“Suppose an eligible family member is appointed on compassionate grounds today and tomorrow she is married, would she disqualify for the job”, Justice Magrey asked and quashed the impugned communication of the GAD holding the petitioner as not being dependent upon the deceased and thereby denying appointment on compassionate grounds.
High Court directed respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and take a decision within two months. “This is a fit case where the respondents ought to be burdened with heavy costs for having unreasonably slept over the matter for such a long period of time and then coming with a plea that the claim is stale”, Justice Magrey said.
However, taking lenient view, the High Court ordered that the parties shall bear their own costs.
Follow our WhatsApp channel