Jammu, Sep 19: In CPSW No. 104/2018 titled Jyoti Devi Vs. Hardesh Kumar and ors. after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDERED as:-
01. The petitioner is seeking implementation of order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 2509/2016, whereby the respondents have been directed to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner, if the rules provides for the same.
It has been further provided that if the Government has acted upon the judgment delivered in the case of Veena Devi vs. State and others passed in SWP No. 1076/2005, decided on 08.09.2016, it may consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the said judgment.
It is pertinent to mention here that vide the judgment passed in Veena Devi’s case (supra) this Court had observed that there is no justification in refusing compassionate appointment in a case where right to regularization had accrued to the deceased Government servant prior to his death.
02. The respondents have filed statement of facts, whereby they have intimated that claim of the petitioner was considered and has been rejected in terms of Order No. CEJ/DPC/Court/27 of 2019 dated 14.06.2019. The reason assigned is that in Veena Devi’s case (supra), the deceased was engaged prior to March, 1994, whereas in the instant case, the deceased had been engaged after March 1994.
The SRO 64/1994 provided regularization of services of those Daily Wagers, who had been engaged prior to March, 1994 and had completed seven years of service, but all those Daily Wagers, who were appointed after March 1994 were to be regularized against the available vacancy in terms of Cabinet Decision dated 30.08.2012.
On the ground of this distinction, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating that the deceased in the instant case had been engaged after March, 1994. 03. In the judgment of Veena Devi’s case (supra), it has been clearly laid down by this Court that there is no justification in refusing compassionate appointment in a case where right to regularization had accrued to the deceased Government servant prior to his death.
In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased had put in more than seven years of service as Daily Wager with the respondent-Department. Just because no post was available for his regularization, does not mean that right of regularization had not accrued in his favour.
Therefore, the distinction drawn by the respondents in declining the claim of the petitioner is not tenable.
The compliance report filed by the respondents, as such, cannot be accepted.
04. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to comply with the judgment of the Writ Court by the next date of hearing and file afresh compliance report.
05. To be listed on 15.11.2023.
|