JUDGMENT
V.K Jhanji, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 25th July 2002 whereby the claim of the appellants for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. In brief the facts are that one Sham Lal Pandita, Inspector in J&K Police was killed by the militants on 15.7.1994. Earlier to that his only son aged 21/22 years was kidnapped by the militants and killed in the Ist week of May 1994. One Anil Kumar Jad claiming himself to be the adopted son of Sham Lal Pandita sought appointment on compassionate grounds. Vice order dated 9.7.2001 sanction was accorded to the appointment of Anil Kumar Jad as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Department in relaxation of rules and age bar by one year four months and 15 days as on 1.1.2001. The appointment made was on account of sufferings of the family due to on going militancy and death of his adoptive father in militancy related incident. The appellants herein are the widow and son-in-law of said Sham lal Pandita . The case of the appellants is that Anil Kumar jad was not the adopted son of Sham Lal Pandita and it is on the basis of forged documents that he got himself appointed on compassionate grounds. In the writ petition they called in question the appointment of Anil Kumar Jad who was impleaded as respondent No 4 in the writ petition. During the pendency of writ petition, corrigendum to Govt. order dated 9.7.2001 came to be issued under endorsement No Home/43/Apptt/95/PB-III dated 22.8.2001, pursuant to which the words “and death of his adoptive father in militancy related incident” came to be deleted. According to the appellants as on today in the face of corrigendum issued to government order dated 9.7.2001 the appointment of Anil Kumar Jad cannot be considered on compassionate grounds and he would be deemed have been to appointed in his own right as Assistant Sub Inspector and so appellant No 2 namely the son in law of deceased Sham Lal Pandita is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly recorded in the impugned order that appellant No 2 is the daughter of deceased. It is contended that appellant No 2 being Khana Damad would be deemed to be a member of the family and thus entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. At is contended that learned Single Judge is not justified in denying appointment to appellant No 2.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully gone through the record of this case.
4. On the death of Sham Lal Pandita who had been killed by the militants One Anil Kumar Jad who claimed himself to be the adopted son of deceased employes was appointed on compassionate grounds as Assistant Sub Inspector. It is true that subsequently his appointment has been called in question and corrigendum was issued treating his appointment not on the basis of being adopted son of Sham lal Pandita, but the fact remains that the initial appointment of Anil Kumar Jad was on account of death of his adoptive father in the militancy related incident. No objection whatsoever of Anil Kumar Jad while the case of Anil Kumar Jad was under consideration for his appointment as adopted son of Sham Lal Pandita. It is only after he had been appointed that his appointment was called in question.
5. Be that as it may appellant No 2 being son-in-law cannot be considered to be a member of the family or can be said he was dependant on the deceased. There is no policy of the government or any provision whereby son-in-law can be given appointment on compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointment is usually confined to the son, daughter and widow of an employee during in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole objects of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The scope of compassionate employment cannot be enlarged to include son-in-law of deceased nor can be said to be dependent of deceased.
6. Accordingly we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of learned single Judge and the appeal is dismissed.