Khalid Faroz Bund vs U.T. of J&K & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The case of the applicant, as projected in the Original Application, is that his deceased father was serving in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department and was allotted Belt No. 1257/S dated 18.07.1996. It is averred that, while performing his duties at Naaz crossing on 25.09.2002 in a terrorists’ attack, the deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same on the same day. In this regard, FIR No. 96/2002 under Sections 307 and 302 RPC and 7/27 I.A. Act was registered at Police Station Sherghari, Srinagar.

It is further stated in the application that, at the time of the death of the applicant’s father, the applicant was a minor and, therefore, was not eligible for appointment under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. It is averred that upon attaining majority, the applicant submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, without any undue delay.

It is further stated that, in the year 2014, the applicant’s mother submitted an application before the respondent-department, stating that, being illiterate, she was not in a position to secure government employment and requesting that the benefit of compassionate appointment under the SRO 43 be kept reserved in favor of her minor son, the applicant. According to the applicant, the said position was also reflected in communication dated 12.08.2022, pursuant to which the applicant’s case was processed and he was sent for medical examination and fitness test, both of which, it is stated, were duly completed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, vide Communication No. Pers-A/151/2022 49468-69 dated 09.09.2022, issued by Respondent No. 2, Director General of Police, Government of J&K at Srinagar, declined to accept the applicant’s claim on the ground that, under SRO 43 of 1994, read with SRO 255 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016, his case was not pending consideration at the relevant time. It is contended that said premise was factually incorrect, as the communications issued by the respondent-department demonstrates that applicant’s case had remained pending consideration for appointment under SRO No. 43 of 1994, and continued to remain so when SRO 255 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016 came to be introduced.

Learned counsel further submits that, thereafter, the department issued various circulars extending the benefits of applicable provisions to the next of kin/ dependents of the martyrs. It is accordingly contended that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Communication dated 09.09.2022 is arbitrary, unfair and unjustifiable It is further submitted that failure of the respondents to consider and accord appointment under the compassionate scheme in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 and subsequent applicable schemes in favor of the applicant, notwithstanding the pendency of his case is unjustifiable and unreasonable.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon, inter alia, the communication bearing No. DCP/SRO/26/01 dated 01.04.2026, addressed by Additional District Magistrate, Pulwama to the Sr. Superintendent of Police , District Srinagar, forwarding a favorable DLSCC report dated 30.09.2025 along with the original CID report received from the Criminal Investigation Department vide No. CID/MR/SRO-43/1944-1957/2025/693 dated 24.02.2026 in respect of the deceased and the applicant. Learned counsel also placed on record the communication bearing No. CID/MR/SRO-43/1944-1957/2025/693 dated 24.02.2026, addressed to District Magistrate, District Pulwama, regarding verification of the character and antecedents of the applicant, wherein, according to the report, nothing adverse was found against the applicant and his deceased father. The said report also contained a reference that the mother of the applicant has settled with applicant’s uncle.

Learned counsel further placed on record a photocopy of the minutes of meeting held under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Pulwama of the DLSCC, constituted for consideration of cases relating to compassionate appointment of terror victims under SRO-43 of 1994 on 30.09.2025, included the case of the applicant , wherein his case figured at serial No. 37 and was recorded as ‘clear ‘in remarks column , with further observation that ‘the case be submitted to the police department for necessary action as per law.’

Learned counsel for the applicant placed on record the copy of S.O 429, contending that the Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2022 has been introduced with the object of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to eligible beneficiaries in accordance with the applicable provisions thereof. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid documents and submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondents may directed to consider and accord due consideration to the applicant’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with applicable scheme and law.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the stand taken in the reply filed on their behalf, submitted that although the applicant, upon attaining majority, completed the requisite formalities prescribed under SRO-43 of 1994 for consideration of compassionate appointment; however, upon examination of the case, it was found that applicant’s case was not covered under SRO-43 of 1994 read with SRO-255 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016. Learned counsel contended that upon examination of the claim, it was found that the NOKs of the martyr Constable had not applied for appointment within the prescribed period of one year after the death of the deceased and proposed beneficiary was also not born at the time of death of his father. Accordingly, the case was not found covered under the amended provisions of SRO-43 of 1994 read with SRO-255 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016 and fit for consideration by the department.

Through the medium of the instant petition the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs-

Learned counsel for the applicant, after making submissions for some time, submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the present application is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time frame, in light of the submissions made and the assertions raised in the application , the documents annexed thereto, as well as the documents/ communications 01.04.2026 , 24.04.2026, minutes of meeting dated 30.09.2025 submitted during the course of hearing , and in accordance with applicable rules/ policy and law holding the field .

Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, DAG submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, this Tribunal may pass appropriate orders in the matter. The learned counsel further submits that respondents have no objection to the present application being treated as a representation and that same shall be considered and disposed of within the time stipulated by this Tribunal, in accordance with the applicable rules/policy and law .

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present O.A., may be disposed of at this stage by treating the same as a representation. In view of consensus between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present application pending.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat this original application as a representation of the applicant and consider and decide the claim(s) raised therein, in light of the communications dated 01.04.2026 and 24.02.2026, as well as the minutes of meeting held on 30.09.2025 and its report submitted vide No. 21.02.2026.

While Undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondent shall also take into consideration the applicable schemes of SRO 43 of 1994 and S.O 429 of 2022 (Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2022) as well as other applicable rules and regulations, subject to applicants entitlement and eligibility and the law holding the field, provided there being no other legal or factual impediment to the consideration thereof. The respondent shall further take into consideration the documents annexed to the application and those produced by the applicant during the course of hearing.

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a comprehensive reasoned, speaking, and detailed order.

However, it is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims or contentions raised by either side. All questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Accordingly, O.A. No. 974/2022 is disposed in above terms, along with the connected M.As., if any.

The parties are to bear their own costs.

Consign the file to the Record Room, after due compliance.