Sindhu Sharma JUDGMENT
Sindhu Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of order No. 26 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 vide which her case for compassionate appointment was rejected. This order was passed in compliance to the order dated 20.10.2000 passed in SWP 1602/1998.
2. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Bal Krishan Warikoo, who was working as a Work Charge Employee in the office of respondent No. 2 since 19.12.1981, died on 02.01.1996. As her husband's services were not regularized therefore, the petitioner sought regularization of his services.
3. Superintending Engineer, J&K PDC vide his letter dated 17.02.1997, requested Commissioner Secretary to Government, Power Development Department, J&K for regularization of services of the deceased-Bal Krishan Warikoo w.e.f. 01.04.1994 so that family of the deceased could receive pensionary benefits. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 27.12.2000, and she is aggrieved of the order No. 26 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002.
4. Petitioner is aggrieved of order No. 26 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002 on the ground that at the time of the death of her husband, she was within the age group as prescribed under SRO 43 of 1994. However, the respondents have not considered her case at the time of the death of her husband. Since her husband was the only bread earner, after his death the family is in the state of penury, therefore, she sought compassionate appointment for sustenance of her family. Respondents have passed the order without assigning any reason and presumably on the ground that she is overage. Respondents have not relaxed the upper age limit as has been done in case of respondent No. 5 where the upper age limit has been relaxed by 04 years 09 months and 15 days, but the same consideration has been denied to her.
5. Respondents in their objections have stated that the General Administration Department vide its Order No. 92/CM/2002 dated 08.04.2002 has not accepted the request of the petitioner and refused to grant upper age relaxation, as such, the case of the petitioner has been rejected.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for seeking appointment on compassionate ground only on 27.12.2000 which was forwarded, since she was overage at the time of seeking compassionate appointment, as such, her case was rejected.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Respondents vide Order dated 26.04.2002 has rejected the case of the petitioner on the following grounds:
"Whereas, the deceased, husband of petitioner was regularized after his death by Chief Engineer USHP-II vide his order No. CE/USHP-II/135 dated 21.11.1998 and the petitioner has been granted the pensionary benefits.
Whereas, as per the Jammu and Kashmir compassionate appointment rules 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 24 day of Sept. 1991, rule 3 of the said rules specially provides that the applicant may be appointed against vacancy in the lowest rank of non-gazetted service provided that the applicant is eligible and qualified or acquires eligibility and qualification within the period of six months from the date of death of deceased."
9. Thus, from the perusal of the order, it is clear that the services of the husband of the petitioner were regularized after his death. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2000, after the regularization of the service of her husband, when she was already overage. The sole intention of framing Compassionate Appointment Rules was to provide immediate relief and sustenance to the dependents of the deceased and to ameliorate the economic distrust of the family of the deceased. The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, MANU/SC/0701/1994 : [1994] 3 SCR 893 has held that the very fact is that family had survive for longtime would be sufficient to deny such appointment and while considering the scope of compassionate appointment held as under:
"It was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open ........