S. No. 23 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR SWP 71/2016 IA (1/2016) ABDUL MAJEED. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sami Sabir Lone, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faizan Ahmad Ganai, CGSC CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 26.08.2025 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the following reliefs; i. “A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of the eligible legal heir of the deceased for compassionate appointment and pass appointment order. ii. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner pending with them and accord consideration to the case in view of the pathetic condition of the family.” 2. The facts on the strength of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner and as are stated herein are that the petitioner’s son, namely, Niyaz Ahmad working as LNK with the respondents died during service on 06.12.2009, leaving behind a large family including father, mother, sister and the younger brothers in a desperate condition with no source of income, whereafter the petitioner claims herein applied for compassionate appointment of any of the legal heirs of the deceased, to the respondents and submitted all documents well within time including those sought by the respondents, being the pay details certificate of the deceased, and that the respondents kept the said compassionate appointment case pending and did not consider the same despite repeated requests made by the petitioner aggrieved whereof the petitioner approached this Court and filed the instant petition. 3. Response/reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents wherein it is admitted that the son of the petitioner was working as LNK and died while in service in the month of December 2009, however, the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in year 2016 and that the family of the deceased included his wife and two daughters as well besides father, mother, three brothers and three sisters and that upon the death of the deceased, the wife of the deceased was granted various monetary benefits consisting of Final Settlement of Account, amounting to Rs.1,48,447/-, AFFFP fund amounting to Rs.2,64,914/-, AGI Death Insurance for Rs.15,00,000/-, AGI Death Maturity for Rs.74,821/-, ACWF for Rs.1,00,000/-, DLI for Rs.60,000/- Death Gratuity for Rs.1,75,224 and Family Pension Rs.13,217/- (including DA). It is also stated in the reply that one, Mohammad Amir, Advocate, had sought pay details of the deceased on 31.08.2010 which were furnished to him on 10.09.2010. It is also stated that as per Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Office Memorandum No.F.No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013, brother of a deceased can be considered for compassionate appointment, in case, the deceased had died unmarried and that since deceased, in the instant case, had been married and had two living children after his death, his brother as such, could not seek compassionate appointment as he was not eligible. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Before proceeding to advert to the case in hand it is significant to mention here that providing of compassionate appointment is an exception to the appointment in the Public Services, aimed at to offer such appointment out of pure humanitarian considerations in order to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crises. It is settled position of law that compassionate appointment can neither be claimed nor granted unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments and that such appointments shall be strictly made in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid object of the compassionate appointment and coming back to the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased has died in the year 2009 and it is the specific stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner, being the father of the deceased, sought compassionate appointment for his another son, namely, Khursheed Ahmad, in the year 2016, that too in presence of the immediate family of the deceased, consisting of his wife and two daughters. The said fact that the petitioner had sought said compassionate appointment in the year 2016 from the respondents has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any response thereto or else producing any record in rebuttal thereof. 6. Since it is an undisputed fact that the compassionate appointment has been sought by the petitioner after a considerable period of time from the date of death of the deceased, against the very purpose for which compassionate appointment can be granted being that the same should be granted immediately upon the death in order to give relief to the family of the deceased from the immediate hardship and distress caused due to such death. 7. Thus, in view of above, the claim lodged by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, is held to be not entertainable in law in view of aforesaid scheme and object of compassionate appointment inasmuch as in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as “State of Manipure v. Mohammad Rajaodin” reported in 2003 Volume 7 SCC 511. 8. Resultantly the petition fails and is dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 26.08.2025 “Sabreena Rahim”