AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
The present petition is filed through the uncle of the petitioner, as the petitioner is a minor, seeking protection of the rights of the petitioner as the son of the deceased employee, who died in harness on 02.06.2019. The father of the petitioner, who was working in the department of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Orderly-cum-Chowkidar in the pay scale of 19900-63200 + 1900 GP (Level-2), died in harness on 02.06.2019, as is evident from the letter issued by respondent No. 4 dated 31.07.2019, the death certificate of Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and the communication dated 31.07.2019.
It is also stated in the petition that much before the death of the petitioner's father, the mother of the petitioner, namely Bhat Kulsama, also expired on 07.01.2017, which is evident from the death certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, SMC. Unfortunately, the deceased employee had two children out of their wedlock, one being the petitioner, Saiem Iqbal, and the other being Saliyha Iqbal. However, it is also a fact that the elder brother of the petitioner, namely Saliyha Iqbal, who is another son of the deceased, has 90% permanent disability, which is evident from the disability certificate issued by the Medical Authority, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India.
Thus, the only family member left in the petitioner's family who is eligible to seek the benefits under SRO-43, commonly known as the rules framed for compassionate appointment, is the petitioner, who is presently a minor. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed through the paternal uncle of the petitioner in order to seek consideration under SRO-43 in favour of the petitioner, which, so far, has neither been undertaken nor considered by the respondents despite repeated requests made to them.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are duty-bound to reserve a post under the compassionate appointment scheme to support the deceased employee's family. He further submits that through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for this Hon'ble Tribual’s judicial intervention to consider the case on humanitarian, legal, and constitutional grounds under Article 21 and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Hence, this T.A. on being transferred to this Tribunal.
Reply has been filed, wherein it has been mentioned that the Administrative Department, vide communication No. IND/Legal-143/2020 dated 22.12.2020, intimated that the instant case was taken up with the General Administration Department for its advice/opinion, which, vide UO No. GDC195/CM/2020-SRO dated 10.12.2020, returned the case with the following remarks:
“Returned. The department is informed that the case of the applicant is neither covered under relaxation policy/SRO-43 of 1994 nor covered in terms of SRO-120 of 2018".
Through the medium of the instant petition the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs-
a)Mandamus commanding the respondents to ear mark / reserve one post for the petitioner against which the petitioner be appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme of the state on attaining the eligibility as provided under law OR the petitioner be considered for any other scheme created for the livelihood the persons like petitioner.
b)Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Vide order dated 03.08.2026, learned counsel for the applicant was granted a last opportunity to file his rejoinder. However, today, when the matter came up for consideration, he submits that he does not intend to file a rejoinder to the response filed by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length and submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if the present T.A. is treated as a representation and the respondents be directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time frame, in light of the averments made therein and SRO-43 of 1994, along with the documents annexed and the law applicable in the instant case.
Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG, submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondents have no objection if the present T.A. is treated as a representation and is disposed of in terms of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present T.A. may be disposed of at this stage by treating the same as a representation.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present T.A. is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this T.A. as representation and to accord due consideration to the assertions made therein, in light of the SRO-43 of 1994 and the law holding the field and subject to the entitlement and eligibility of the applicant, as well as other applicable conditions and rules and regulations. Further, if there is no impediment. Respondents shall also take into consideration the documents annexed with the T.A. while according such consideration.
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.
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, T.A. No. 2353/2020 is disposed of along with the connected M.As., if any, parties are to bear their own costs.
Consign the file to the Record Room, after due compliance.