Mohammad Iqbal Pandith vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The matter was listed today for filing of reply. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Transfer Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the present matter is disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

The case of the applicant, as projected in the Original Application, is that his father, namely, Mohammad Altaf Pandit, son of Rashid Pandit, resident of Uthoora, Pulwama, was serving as Line Man Grade-II in the Power Development Department and was posted at Sub-Division Shahoora, Awantipora, District Pulwama, at the time of his unfortunate demise on 29.08.2024. It is stated that the death of the deceased Government employee caused a sudden financial crisis in the family and, being the son and dependent family member of the deceased, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994.

It is averred that the applicant submitted his application for compassionate appointment before the competent authority on 06.09.2024, without any delay and within the period prescribed under the applicable scheme. It is further stated that the application was accompanied by the requisite documents, including the death certificate, undertaking and other supporting documents, for Central Administrative Tribunal^{facilitating consideration of his claim. A copy of the} application along with the accompanying documents has been placed on record as Annexure-II.

It is further averred that, for processing the applicant’s claim under SRO-43 of 1994, a Legal Heir Certificate was issued by the Tehsildar, Pulwama, on 04.10.2024, recording the surviving legal heirs of the deceased employee, namely, Afshana Altaf, daughter; Mohammad Iqbal Pandit, son, i.e. the applicant herein; Muneera Akhter, widow; Nadeem Ahmad Pandit, son; and Suriya Altaf, daughter, aged 23 years. The applicant relies upon the said certificate to substantiate his status as a dependent family member of the deceased employee. The Legal Heir Certificate has been placed on record as Annexure-III.

The applicant further submits that SRO-43 of 1994 provides for compassionate appointment to dependent family members of a Government employee who dies in harness, with the object of providing immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family. It is his case that, being Central Administrative Tribunal^{the natural son of the deceased Government employee, he} falls within the category of family members contemplated under the said scheme and is entitled to consideration of his claim in accordance with the applicable rules.

The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Mst. Shabeena Khan v. Director, SKIMS (2022), wherein, according to the applicant, the Court examined the scope of the expression “family member” under Rule 2(d) of the applicable rules and held that a son or daughter could not be excluded merely on the ground of marital status, and that dependency is a matter to be verified by the competent authority. The applicant submits that, in view of the aforesaid legal position, his claim cannot be rejected by importing any restriction which is not contained in the applicable rules. It is further his case that, notwithstanding his marital status, he continues to be a dependent family member of the deceased employee and that his claim is required to be considered in accordance with the scheme.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{08.The grievance of the applicant is that, despite submission} of his application on 06.09.2024 along with the requisite supporting documents, the respondents have neither processed his claim nor communicated any decision thereon. It is contended that such inaction defeats the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is intended to provide timely assistance to the family of an employee who dies in harness.

The applicant further asserts that he is the natural and dependent son of the deceased employee and that his status as a family member is reflected in the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the competent authority. According to the applicant, the respondents were required to examine his dependency and other conditions prescribed under SRO-43 of 1994 instead of keeping his claim pending without any decision. The applicant alleges that such inaction is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the object of the scheme.

The applicant has also placed reliance upon the aforesaid Central Administrative Tribunal^{judgment in Mst. Shabeena Khan v. Director, SKIMS} (2022), submitting that the respondents are required to consider his claim in accordance with the interpretation placed upon the relevant provisions by the Hon’ble High Court and cannot reject or ignore the claim on the basis of any distinction between married and unmarried dependants which is not contemplated by the statutory scheme.

It is further contended that the compassionate appointment scheme is intended to provide immediate assistance to the family of a deceased Government employee and that prolonged inaction on the part of the authorities defeats the humanitarian object underlying the scheme. The applicant asserts that the family has suffered financial hardship on account of the death of its breadwinner and that, despite submission of the death certificate, Legal Heir Certificate and other requisite documents, no effective steps have been taken by the respondents for consideration of his claim.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{12.The applicant has also alleged that the respondents are} required to process compassionate appointment cases in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner and that his case has remained pending without any justification. It is contended that no communication has been issued to him explaining the reasons for the delay or informing him of any deficiency in his application or supporting documents.

It is further asserted that the respondents have failed to undertake the requisite verification and other procedural steps contemplated under the scheme despite the applicant having submitted the necessary documents. The applicant accordingly contends that his claim cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that the continued inaction of the respondents warrants appropriate directions for consideration of his case.

On the aforesaid basis, the applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to process and consider his claim for compassionate appointment strictly in terms of SRO-43 of Central Administrative Tribunal^{1994 and further to appoint him against an appropriate} available post for which he is eligible, strictly in accordance with the applicable scheme. The applicant has also sought, as an interim measure, a direction to the respondents to process and consider his claim for compassionate appointment during the pendency of the present proceedings.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Transfer Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer now made on behalf of the applicant and the statement of learned counsel for the respondents that he has no objection to disposal of the matter with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim, this Tribunal deems it Central Administrative Tribunal^{appropriate to dispose of the present Transfer Application} with a direction to the respondents to treat the present Transfer Application as a representation and to examine and decide the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, including his claim for consideration and appointment against an appropriate available post for which he may be found eligible, in the light of the facts and circumstances pleaded by him, the documents annexed to the Transfer Application and the applicable rules, regulations and law governing the field.

While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the competent authority shall consider the applicant’s application dated 06.09.2024, the death certificate of the deceased employee, the Legal Heir Certificate dated 04.10.2024 and the other documents relied upon by the applicant, as well as the judgment relied upon by him in Mst. Shabeena Khan v. Director, SKIMS (2022), to the extent the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s case. The competent authority shall also Central Administrative Tribunal^{examine the applicant’s assertion regarding his} dependency and his claim for consideration under SRO-43 of 1994 strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order upon the aforesaid claims within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith thereafter.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim, including his eligibility or entitlement to compassionate appointment, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Any pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{22.Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room} after due compliance.