Ms. Fatima Bibi vs State of JK & Ors.

Objections on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been filed and with the consensus of learned counsel on each side, this petition is admitted and

taken up for final disposal.

Case of the petitioner precisely is that her son Altaf Hussain got killed due to militancy in the year 1995 and her grievance is that she has not

been given the benefit under SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 199 of 2008 in spite of clear directions issued by respondent No. 1 that her case

shall be considered for benefit of cash compensation in terms of above said two SROs. Stand taken by the respondent No. 1 is clearly stated in

paragraph No. 2 of the para-wise reply and I culled out the relevant portion therefrom:-

The respondent, however, did not chose to settle the case, submitted the case to the answering respondent vide communication No.

DCJ/Relief/2012-13/863 dated 28.12.2012. However, again vide letter dated 28.01.2013, the respondent No. 3 was advised to settle the case

by way of cash compensation as per SRO 199 of 2008 as already advised to him vide communication dated 30.12.2011 and 08.08.2012. the

respondent No. 3 did not chose to settle the case himself but instead took up the matter with the answering respondent vide his communication

No. DCJ/Relief/2013-13/983 dated 27.02.2013. On examination of the case, the respondent No. 3 was again advised vide letter dated

29.03.2013 not to forward the case again and again as the same involves relaxation and needs to be disposed of by way of cash compensation.

Finally when the petitioner again approached to the answering respondent with a request that his case is not being settled by the respondent No. 3,

the answering respondent again in terms of letter dated 16.07.2014 asked the respondent No. 3 to decide the matter in light of the earlier

communications dated 30.12.2011, 08.08.2012, 28.01.2013 i.e., by way of cash compensation under SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 199 of

2008.

Besides, the precise and the clear stand taken by the respondent No. 1 and their reference to the communication dated 28.01.2013, the

petitioner has produced a copy of communication dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure-I), whereby the Administrative Department has issued a clear

direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to settle the case of the applicant (petitioner) by way of cash compensation as per provisions of

SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 199 of 2008. This communication in its substance reads:-

In continuation to this departments letter of even No. dated 29.03.2014, regarding the above noted subject, the undersigned is directed to say

that the case has been reexamined in the GAD and the decision conveyed vide letters of even No. dated 30.12.2011, 08.08.2012, 28.01.2013

(copies enclosed), where-under you had been advised to settle the case of the applicant by way of cash compensation as per the provisions of

SRO 43/94 read with SRO 199/2008 dated 04.07.2008 is hereby reiterated for further necessary action at your end please.

It, thus, emerges as a common ground of the Government and the petitioner that petitioner''s case is required to be settled in terms of

aforementioned two SROs for payment of cash compensation, but the failure lies on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, herein

respondent No. 3.

In face of aforementioned admitted position, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to respondent No. 3 to take a final decision in

the matter without any further delay and in any case within four weeks after the petitioner produces a copy of this order in his office. Likewise,

direction is issued to respondent No. 1 that it shall ensure compliance of this order within the stipulated time.

Disposed of.