Srinagar: In a significant ruling clarifying the law governing compassionate appointments, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that applications for such appointments must strictly comply with the statutory time-limits prescribed under the rules, and cannot be entertained after prolonged delays.
The court ruled that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to a deceased employee’s family, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right years later.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma while allowing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the Jammu and Kashmir government and setting aside a single judge’s order that had directed authorities to appoint a deceased prison employee’s son on compassionate grounds.
The case stems from the death of Abdul Rehman Sheikh, who served as a warder in the Prisons department and died in harness on June 08, 1998.
At the time of his death, his son, Irshad Ahmad Sheikh, was around seven years old. After attaining majority in 2009, Irshad applied for compassionate appointment in government service.
The Home department rejected the application in August 2015, stating that it did not fall within the scope of the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994.
Under these rules, an eligible family member must apply for appointment within one year of the employee’s death, although the period was later extended to five years through an amendment.
Challenging the rejection orders, Irshad and his mother, Khadmi Begum, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The court allowed their plea in May 2015, quashed the rejection orders, and directed the authorities to consider issuing an appointment order to Irshad.
The government subsequently filed an intra-court appeal, arguing that the writ court had overlooked the statutory limitation period prescribed under the rules.
The official lawyer contended that since the applicant had applied nearly 11 years after the death of the employee, the claim was clearly time-barred and therefore not maintainable.
After examining the record, the Division Bench observed that Irshad had attained majority more than a decade after his father’s death and had applied for the job long after the permissible period had expired.
The court held that the writ court failed to consider the limitation period stipulated under the 1994 rules.
The bench also examined the claim that Irshad’s mother had earlier applied for compassionate appointment but was denied due to illiteracy and later became overage.
However, it noted that the petition itself admitted that the department had asked her to submit duplicate copies of documents “which were never provided”.
“In such circumstances, no blame can be attributed to the authorities for not considering her case within time,” the court observed.
The judges emphasized that the core purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing sudden hardship due to the death of a government employee. “If a family manages to sustain itself for a long period after the employee’s death, it indicates that the urgent need for such relief no longer exists,” they said.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Tinku v. State of Haryana & Others, the bench reiterated that compassionate appointment policies are designed for prompt relief and that delayed claims cannot ordinarily be entertained.
The court also noted that the precedents relied upon by the writ court were factually different and therefore not applicable to the present case.
Setting aside the earlier judgment, the division bench allowed the appeal filed by the government and dismissed the writ petition filed by Irshad and his mother.
