HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No. :- WP(C) No. 1242/2022 Kajal ….. Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Himani Khajuria, Advocate Vs UT of J&K .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 13.05.2025 1. In the instant petition the petitioner herein has called in question Order No. DCJ/Relief/2019-20/SRO-43/35-36 dated 04.10.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Rev) Jammu, in terms whereof the petitioner has been held not entitled to the issuance of the dependent certificate, for being the legal heir/dependent of one Wilson Masih who is claimed to have died in harness on 08/09-05-2011 while working as SGCT in Police Department, in order to enable the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994. 2. According to the petitioner, upon the death of her above named father, the petitioner obtained a judgment and decree from the court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu dated 30.12.2021, whereby the petitioner came to be declared as a legal heir of the said deceased and entitled to claim compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 and that the petitioner had applied for issuance of the dependent certificate before the respondent for enabling her to apply for seeking compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 owing to the death of her father in harness, but the respondent without following the Sr.No. 92 2 WP(C) No. 1242/2022 mandate of the SRO-43 of 1994 in this regard declined the issuance of the dependent certificate in favour of the petitioner. 3. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the issuance of the dependent certificate in favour of the petitioner was declined owing to the fact that the explanation (d) of rule 2 of SRO 43 do not provide or include a married daughter in the definition of family and since the petitioner upon enquiry conducted in the matter was found to be married daughter of the deceased, issuance of the said certificate was declined. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset heavily relied upon the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled “Mst. Shabeena Khan vs. Director, SKIMS and another” in SWP No. 856/2019 decided on 31.01.2022 and would contend that the ground of rejection urged in the impugned order by the respondent, for the petitioner being the married daughter of the deceased, does not disqualify or disentitle the petitioner for issuance of dependent certificate merely on account of the petitioner being married, in that, the respondents while considering the issuance of the said certificate have had to hold an enquiry to find out whether the petitioner, in fact, was dependent upon the deceased and not of her being married and that the respondents did not held any such enquiry in this regard and rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground of her being married. 5. A closer examination of the judgment Supra, manifestly, reveals that the Court has rightly concluded that the married daughter of a deceased is not excluded from seeking the compassionate appointment under SRO-43, in the event the said married daughter of the deceased has been dependent on the 3 WP(C) No. 1242/2022 deceased and this Court has no reason to take a view different than which has been taken by the coordinate Bench in the judgment Supra. 6. Record available on the file in general and the impugned order in particular, manifestly, demonstrates that the respondent has not held an enquiry in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner herein despite being married was dependent on the deceased or not, but has declined to issue dependent certificate alone on account of her being married daughter of the deceased. The matter, thus seemingly, has not received appropriate consideration by the respondent, therefore, necessitates its reconsideration. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with the direction to the respondent to revisit and reconsider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid observations and pass fresh orders thereof, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondent. 8. Disposed of. ( (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 13.05.2025 Pawan Angotra Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No Pawan Angotra 2025.05.19 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document