The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently delivered a significant judgment interpreting the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO 43 of 1994). The case revolved around the eligibility of a deceased employee's dependent for compassionate appointment under Rule 31 and Rule 32 of the said rules. The Court's decision clarified the scope and application of these rules, providing valuable insights into the compassionate appointment process in the region.
In this case, the petitioner, Irshad Rashid Shah, sought compassionate appointment following the martyrdom of his father, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, in a militant attack in August 2017. Initially, Shah, being an undergraduate, was recommended for appointment as a Constable, a position commensurate with his qualification at that time, under Rule 31 of SRO 43. However, after completing his graduation in 2020, Shah pursued his case afresh, seeking elevation to the position of Sub-Inspector, citing parity with similarly situated individuals who had been appointed as Sub-Inspectors under similar circumstances.
The Police Headquarters (PHQ) recognized Shah's case as militancy-related and recommended his appointment as Sub-Inspector to the Department of Home. However, the Home Department returned the file, advising that the case be processed under Rule 31, resulting in Shah being offered the lower post of Constable. Dissatisfied with this decision, Shah approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking elevation to the Sub-Inspector post, but his plea was dismissed.
The High Court, upon reviewing the case, undertook an in-depth analysis of Rule 31 and Rule 32 of SRO 43. The Court held that Rule 31 is intended for routine appointments in the lowest rung of non-gazetted services or Class-IV posts, strictly adhering to the prescribed qualifications and procedures. In contrast, Rule 32 confers discretionary power upon the Government in the General Administration Department (GAD) to appoint an eligible family member of a deceased employee to a higher non-gazetted post based on merit and recruitment rules.
The Court emphasized that the discretionary power under Rule 32 is exceptional in nature and must be exercised judiciously, with reasons recorded for such decisions. The Court further directed the reconsideration of Shah's claim for appointment as a Sub-Inspector, rejecting the earlier dismissal by the CAT. This decision underscored the Court's recognition of the exceptional circumstances surrounding Shah's case and the applicability of Rule 32 in such situations.
The judgment also highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in the compassionate appointment process. It underscored the need for a clear and consistent application of the rules, ensuring that deserving candidates are not denied their rightful entitlements due to procedural lapses or misinterpretations of the rules.
In conclusion, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's interpretation of Rule 31 and Rule 32 of SRO 43 has provided much-needed clarity on the compassionate appointment process. The decision reinforces the principle that while Rule 31 caters to routine appointments in the lowest non-gazetted posts, Rule 32 allows for discretionary appointments to higher posts based on merit and exceptional circumstances. This judgment serves as a guiding precedent for future cases involving compassionate appointments, ensuring that the rights of dependents of deceased employees are upheld in a fair and just manner.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.