Rayees Ahmad Sheikh vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

Through the medium of this O.A. the applicant seeks for the following reliefs;

The case of the applicant, as projected in the Original Application (O.A.) is that he is the son of Sarwa Akhter, who was working under the respondents as a Class-IV employee (Safaiwala/Sweeper) in Health Services, Kashmir, and died in harness on 04.06.2018 in a road accident. She was survived by her husband, Ab. Salam Sheikh, daughter, Yasmeena Akhter, and son, Rayees Ahmad Sheikh, the petitioner herein. The legal heirs of the deceased, being dependent sustenance and livelihood.

The applicant states that in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, being one of the family members and dependent upon the deceased, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate appointment. However, according to the applicant, his claim has not been considered till date, and a similarly placed person namely Sajjad Ahmad Sheikh has been appointed on compassionate appointment vide Order dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure- IV). The applicant, accordingly contents that, despite being similarly placed his claim has not been accorded similar consideration despite repeated representations, resulting, indiscriminate and arbitrary treatment at the hands of the respondents. applicant approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1195/2022, wherein vide order dated 21.12.2022, the respondents were directed to consider his claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. However, instead of considering the same, the respondents vide communication dated 07.03.2023, declined to forward the case on the ground that the deceased mother of the petitioner figured in the list of 133 fake/illegal appointees and has been disengaged from service vide order 03.10.2016 that the matter was then sub judice.

Subsequently, vide Judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, communication dated 10.09.2025, and order dated 16.10.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. employees were directed to be released and the said employees were taken back into service. The applicant, therefore contends that the ground on which the petitioner’s claim was not forwarded no longer survives and, consequently his claim now requires consideration by the respondents in accordance with applicable rules.

It is further stated that despite representations dated 10.01.2023, 20.03.2023, 20.10.2025 and 20.05.2026, submission of requisite documents and passing of the order dated21.12.2022, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered till date, that necessitated him to file the instant petition seeking redressal of his grievance.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel confine his case to the consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel further urges that the applicant would be satisfied if the present petition along with the documents annexed thereto, is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider and decide his claim for appointment on compassionate ground within a stipulated time frame, in light of the averments made therein, along with the documents annexed thereto and the law applicable in the instant case.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that, as per the pleadings of the applicant himself, he had earlier filed petition bearing No.1195/2022, (Annexure-7, page 29 of the present O.A.), which came to be 21.12.2022 whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date passing of order and decide the representation dated 25.10.2020 as per existing rules and regulations, by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicating the said decision to the applicant.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has filed the present petition seeking substantially the same relief which had already been considered and dealt with by this Tribunal vide order 21.12.2022 passed in OA /1195/2022.It was, accordingly, submitted that the filing of the present petition has resulted in multiplicity of litigation. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondents contentions, the respondents have no objection if the present petition is disposed of with such directions as this Tribunal deem appropriate.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

From the record, it is not discernible that the respondents have passed any reasoned and speaking order in compliance with the direction contained in the order dated 21.12.2022. The grievance of the applicant, therefore, remains unaddressed.

Having regard to the nature of the grievance raised and the limited relief sought by the applicant, this Tribunal is, therefore, of the view that, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present OA pending. In order to bring an end to the grievance of the applicant and to obviate any further round of Central Administrative Tribunal^{litigation, it would be appropriate to direct the} competent authority/ respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment within a stipulated period.

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 the present O.A., along with the documents annexed thereto, as a representation and to consider and decide the claim of the applicant’s claim for appointment on compassionate appointment, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules , regulations, governing the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994, and the law holding the field, subject to the entitlement and eligibility of the applicant in terms of the provisions SRO 43 of 1994, on the merits of the case, and further there being no other legal or Central Administrative Tribunal^{factual impediment.}

While undertaking such consideration, the respondents shall associate the applicant in said process and permit him to place on record such documents in support of his claim as he seeks to rely upon. The aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the respondents, by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

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. 1027/2026 is disposed in above terms. All the connected pending M.As., if any, parties are accordingly disposed of .

Central Administrative Tribunal^{17. The parties are left to bear their own costs.}

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