HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPASW No. 76 OF 2009 State of J&K & ors Petitioners Shashi Bala Sharma. Respondent !Mrs. Shaista Hakim, Dy. AG. ^NONE Honble Mr. Justice Dr. Aftab H. Saikia, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Sunil Hali, Judge. Date: 12.10.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
Dr. Saikia, CJ:
Heard Mrs. Shaista Hakim, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants.
2. Since delay in preferring the instant appeal has been condoned vide order
dated October 12, 2010 (today) passed in CDLSW no. 35/2009 and keeping in
view the importance of the issue raised in this appeal as well as upon hearing the
learned counsel for the appellants, we propose to dispose of this Letters Patent
Appeal today itself at the admission stage.
3. The basic issue involved in this appeal, which witnesses a challenge to
the order dated April 9, 2008 passed by Writ Court in SWP no. 902/2004 is that as
to whether the appointment on compassionate ground can be made on adhoc basis.
4. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent,
having taken into account SRO 43 of 1994, came to a definite and clear finding that
compassionate appointment must be of permanent in nature. Writ Court has
observed as under:
Perusal of the aforesaid SROs makes it clear that there is no provision in the said
SROs to appoint a person on compassionate ground on daily wage, temporary or
adhoc basis. Once the authorities have taken a decision to appoint a person on
compassionate ground under the aforesaid SROs then that appointment is to be
made on permanent basis. If appointment on compassionate ground is made on
temporary, adhoc or daily wage basis then the purpose of aforesaid SROs will be
frustrated. Purpose of such appointment under these SROs is to give immediate
relief to the bereaved family whose bread earner died in harness.
5. Records also reveal that appointment of respondent was made by the
authority concerned on adhoc basis but under the Subject head it was shown as
compassionate appointment of Smt. Shashi Bala. This is reflected from
communication issued by Director Health Services Jammu on August 22, 1998
addressed to Commissioner /Secretary to Government, Health, Family Welfare and
Medical Education Deptt, Jammu and Kashmir Government, Srinagar, as well as
order dated January 14, 1991, issued by Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Health and Medical Education Department, which are annexed as Annexures A
and C to this appeal.
6. The documentation would clearly indicates that though the respondents
case was considered on compassionate ground, she got her appointment on adhoc
basis, which is not permissible under law, as already recorded in the impugned
judgment.
7. We have carefully perused the SRO 43 of 1994 as well as the impugned
judgment. Having considered the facts and circumstances in its entirety, we are of
the firm view that a compassionate appointment needs to be treated as permanent
appointment because such appointment is always intended to tide over the financial
stress faced by the family members on the sudden death of the sole bread earner.
8. That being the position, we find that there is no plausible or cogent ground
to dislodge the impugned judgment and, accordingly, we do agree with the
observations recorded and the views expressed in the impugned judgment.
9. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.
(Sunil Hali) (Dr. Aftab H. Saikia) Judge Chief Justice Jammu: 12.10.2010 Tilak, Secy.