FAROOQ AHMAD GANAI Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Farooq Ahmad Ganai
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS petition enshrines a prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for alleged violation of judgment of this
curt dated: 28.4.2003 purported to have been passed in SWP No. 605 of
2003 whereunder petitioner's plea of appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 was disposed of with an observation that he shall file representation before
competent authority who shall consider and dispose of the same within
three months there from provided the said SRO was in force on that date.
Grounds pleaded are that despite service of a copy of judgement alongwith
representation, respondents failed to act in terms thereof and as such
are guilty of disobedience. In their statement of facts respondents have
stated that petitioner's father namely Abdul Gani Wani was no doubt
working as Daily Wager with respondent/department and due for
regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, but he died before such
regularization even though same had been duly recommended to
Administrative Department, and as such was not in employment of State at
the time of his death due to which petitioner's request for employment
under SRO 43 of 1994 could not be considered. During course of
submissions, counsel appearing for respective sides have reiterated the
contents of their pleadings etc.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. That petitioner's deceased father had been working with respondent/department
for a long period of time and had in view of SRO 64 of 1994 earned a
right of regularization, is not disputed by respondents. That at the time
of his death he had as a matter of fact not been regularized, is not
denied by petitioner. Taken cumulatively these two aspects, attend the
question as to what should be the answer to petitioner's claim of
appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 in given
circumstances. Perusal of additional pleadings supplied by parties
reveals that petitioner's deceased father had become due for
regularization on 14.12.2000 but his case for such regularization was
forwarded to the administrative department on 14.02.2001 only, under
respondents No. Adm/NG/6126 of that date, who appears to have taken up
the matter with concerned committee vide letter No. A/51/94 -246 dated:
01.10.2001. A recommendation for relaxation of age/qualification in the matter was made by respondents to administrative department under No.
Adm/Ng/10252/1/10/02, who in response vide their No. Agri/Horti/135/98
dated: 12.2.2002 asked for photographs and other data of daily wagers
including that of the petitioner's deceased father which was forwarded on
16.4.2002. In response thereto certain discrepancies were pointed out in the case by Assistant Director on 25.4.2002 which were cleared by
respondents' letter dated: 11.05.2002. In between, petitioner's fathers
expired on 5.4.2002 and as such the case was returned by Assistant
Director vide their No. Adm/Ng/79 -11/4908 dated: 22 -07 -2002.
(3.) IN view of the circumstances and correspondence referred to above, it is more than settled that the case of petitioner's deceased
father for regularization was under active consideration of the concerned
department at the time of his death even though he had earned a right for
regularization precisely two years before. That the process of
regularization did not materlise with due dispatch, is squarely
attributable to the delay involved at official level thus obviously
beyond control of the deceased daily wager. As a matter of fact, had the
departmental acted in the matter with due promptitude the deceased father
of petitioner might have been regularized on the merit of his own case.
So it is perfectly due to official laches, that the petitioner is made to
suffer for, and held disentitled to claim benefit under SRO 43 of 1994
for compassionate appointment only because his fathers regularization
could not be formalized even though for no fault of his. In fairness,
therefore, this misfortune suffered by petitioners father due to official
initia should not be allowed to pass down to the petitioner only to
multiply his agony. Instead, his claim deserves to be addressed in the
given prospective as aforesaid in view whereof it does not appear wholly
This line of approach also finds support from a Division Bench Judgment of this court passed "Ashok Kumar v. State & Ors" reported as
2003 (II) SLJ 475, whereunder while elaborating upon the rights of daily wagers to seek continuation and regularization, the bench while drawing
conclusions observed in Sub -Para 45 (15) of the judgment: -
"45(15). That a person can claim compassionate appointment if the deceased employee was entitle to regularization but was not so regularized."
and the observation fully covers the instant case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.