RP No.7/2022 Page No. 1 of 8 Item No. 30 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP No.7/2022 MUZAFFAR AHMAD BHAT …PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. H. Furrahi, Advocate. Vs. STATE OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(0RAL) 23.05.2025 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner is seeking review of order dated 29.03.2018 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing SWP No.1545/2017 has been dismissed. 2) It appears that the petitioner had filed SWP No.1545/2017 before this Court challenging order dated 16.01.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam (respondent No.4), to the extent it affects the right of the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 199 of 2008 dated 04.07.2008. A further direction for engagement of the petitioner on compassionate basis was also sought. RP No.7/2022 Page No. 2 of 8 3) The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court in terms of order under review, which reads as under: 01.Petitioner claims compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 on account of the death of his father, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, in militancy related action in the year 1994 when the petitioner was only about 2 years old. 02. Case of the petitioner appears to have been considered but rejected and instead cash compensation amounting to Rs.04 lakhs has been sanctioned. The petitioner not being satisfied has filed the present petition seeking certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16th January, 2017 whereby cash compensation has been ordered to be paid instead of appointment as sought by the petitioner. 03. Response has been filed by the respondents wherein a stand is taken that petitioner was not eligible for appointment in terms of SRO 43 as he did not fulfill the prescribed age and academic qualification. 04.Rule 3(1) of SRO 43 of 1994 reads as under: - "3. Appointment under these rules: (1) Not withstanding anything contained in any rule or order for the time being in force regulating the procedure for recruitment in any service or posts under the Government, an eligible family member of a person specified in rule 2 may be appointed against a vacancy in the lowest rank of a non- gazetted service having qualification above Matriculation or to a class IV post if the candidate has read upto Matric: Provided that the applicant is eligible and qualified or acquires eligibility and qualification within a period of six months from the death of the deceased person specified in rule 2." 05. According to SRO 199 of 2008 dated 04.07.2008 an amendment was incorporated in Rule 3 of SRO 43 extending the period of acquiring eligibility to one year from 6 months. Yet again in the year 2014, SRO 43 of 1994 was again amended by virtue of SRO 177 dated 20.06.2014 and the period of acquiring qualification was raised from one year to five years. 06. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1994 on which date the petitioner was only two years old. Assuming that the petitioner was entitled to RP No.7/2022 Page No. 3 of 8 the benefit of rule 3 as amended in 2014, still the petitioner did not satisfy the condition of acquiring requisite qualification within five years. In those circumstances, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the official respondents and cash compensation ordered to be paid. 07. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed. 4) It seems that the petitioner being aggrieved of the aforesaid order filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing LPASW No.62/2018. The said appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench in terms of order dated 30.05.2018, whereby the petitioner was given liberty to file review petition against order dated 29.03.2018. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present review petition before this Court. 5) In the review petition, it has been contended that in view of the judgments, which have been taken note of by the Division Bench while granting liberty to the petitioner to file review petition, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. It has been further contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the judgments referred to in the order of the Division Bench have not been considered by this Court. It has been averred that vide communication dated 04.06.2015 issued by the Tehsildar concerned, a recommendation was made to the Deputy Commissioner for considering case of the petitioner for his RP No.7/2022 Page No. 4 of 8 appointment on compassionate basis in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. It has been submitted that the family of the petitioner is facing tremendous financial crisis because of early death of head of the family, namely, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, way back in the year 1994 and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give option to the family of the deceased either to get the cash compensation or to opt for appointment on compassionate basis. 6) Heard and considered. 7) The facts leading to the filing of this review petition are that the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming the benefit of compassionate appointment in his favour on account of death of his father, namely, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, who was killed on 04.03.1994 in a firing incident. It seems that at the relevant time, the petitioner was minor, aged only about two years, when unfortunate death of his father took place in the year 1994 in a militancy related action. It also appears that the petitioner, upon attaining age of majority, along with his brother Tawseef Ahmad Bhat, filed a writ petition bearing OWP No.32/2012 before this Court, wherein they sought a direction upon the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.25.00 lacs along with ex-gratia relief of Rs.1.00 lac, with a further direction to appoint the petitioner herein to government service in RP No.7/2022 Page No. 5 of 8 terms of SRO 43 of 1994. In the said writ petition, an order came to be passed on 11.03.2015, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, was directed to process the case for extending the benefits under SRO 43 in favour of the petitioners therein. 8) The record further reveals that on 10.11.2016, a direction came to be issued by this Court in OWP No.32/2012, whereby the respondent Deputy Commissioner was directed to grant maximum compensation to the petitioners therein and to file compliance report. 9) It seems that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court passed in earlier writ petition, order dated 16.01.2017 came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, whereby compensation in the amount of Rs.4.00 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner herein. 10) The record further shows that the petitioner filed an application in the earlier writ petition seeking modification of order dated 10.11.2016 to the extent that instead of directing the respondents to grant maximum compensation, they should be directed to grant compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. The said application came to be dismissed by virtue of RP No.7/2022 Page No. 6 of 8 order dated 01.03.2017. Ultimately, the writ petition bearing OWP No.32/2012 came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 10.07.2021. 11) During the interregnum, the petitioner filed SWP No.1545/2017 before this Court on 08.08.2017, meaning thereby that the said writ petition has been filed during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. In the said writ petition, as already stated, the petitioner again sought a direction for his appointment on compassionate basis which was also a relief claimed by him in the earlier writ petition. In the writ petition bearing SWP No.1545/2017, the petitioner has declared that no writ petition of like nature is subjudice before any court of law, despite being in knowledge of the fact that he had filed OWP No.32/2012 which was pending at the relevant time and which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution only in the year 2021. Thus, the petitioner has made a false declaration which is supported by his affidavit while filing the writ petition out of which present review petition has emanated. On this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief from this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12) Apart from the above, even on merits, the petitioner does not have a case so as to persuade this Court to review RP No.7/2022 Page No. 7 of 8 its order dated 29.03.2018. Admittedly, the petitioner was only two years old at the time when his father had died and he attained the age of majority 16 years thereafter. As per Rule 3 of SRO 43 of 1994 as amended by SRO 199 of 2008, the period for acquiring eligibility was extended to one year and in terms of per SRO 177 dated 20.06.2014, the said period was extended to five years. Thus, the petitioner had not acquired the eligibility within the period of five years from the date of death of his father. 13) Although in the judgments referred to in the order of the Division Bench, namely, Vikram Singh vs. State of J&K & Ors. 2013 (2) JKJ 126[HC], and Showkat Hussain vs. Union of India & others, 2003 (Supp.) JKJ 786 [HC (DB], it has been held that claim of compassionate appointment of a person who was minor at the time of death of his father can be considered after he attains the age of majority, yet in the subsequent Division Bench judgment in the case of Mudasir Ahmad Kumar vs. State of J&K and others (LPASW No.146/2017 decided on 21.09.2017), a different view has been taken. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, has, after taking note of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of J&K and others v. Sajad Ahmad Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, Haryan State Electricity Board RP No.7/2022 Page No. 8 of 8 vs. Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246, and Commissioner of Public Instructions and others v. K. R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206, held that there is no justification for directing consideration of compassionate employment of an applicant beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 14) In the face of aforesaid judgment, which is later in point of time and in which reliance has been placed upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in earlier judgments, reference whereof is made in the order passed by LPA Bench, is not a binding precedent. 15) For the foregoing reasons, I do no find any ground to review order dated 29.03.2018 passed by this Court. The review petition, being without merit, is dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 23.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the order is reportable: YES/NO Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.05.2025 01:58