HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on 19.05.2026 Pronounced on: 05.06.2026 Uploaded on: 05.06.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full WP(C) No. 1046/2022 Mohammad Rafiq Tandyal …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shah Faisal, Adv. Q vs U. T. of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, GA Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has sought a direction upon the respondents for his appointment on compassionate basis in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 dated 22.12.1994. 2. As per case of the petitioner, his father, namely, Bashir Ahmed Tandyal was appointed as on Daily Wage Basis with the respondent-Lower Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (LJHP) Baramulla on 01.12.1997. Later on, the said project was taken over by J&K Power Development Corporation Limited (JKPDCL). It has been stated that father of the petitioner performed his duties right from the date of his appointment as Daily Wager. On 06.07.2017, father of the petitioner is stated to have passed away leaving behind his wife, four sons and two daughters. It has been submitted that the petitioner, who happens to be son of the deceased Daily Wager, being WP(C) No. 1046/2022 eligible for seeking appointment on compassionate basis under SRO 43 applied with the respondents. The case of the petitioner was duly recommended by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4 and in turn respondent No. 4 forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 3, who vide his communication dated 15.02.2018 forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2. 3. It has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment was found meritorious and the same was duly recommended for its consideration by respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, there were many other identical cases recommended for appointment on compassionate basis and one such case of Zubair Qadir Halwai was accepted by the respondents and he was given the benefit of SRO 43 by accommodating him on Class-IV post, but the case of the petitioner was not considered thereby discriminating against him. 4. It has been submitted that the petitioner made representations before respondent No. 2 but without any success. It has been submitted that the respondents by not appointing the petitioner under SRO 43 have violated his rights guaranteed under the Constitution and they have discriminated against him by according the benefit of SRO 43 to a similarly situated person. 5. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have admitted that father of the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Rated Worker on 01.12.1997. It has been submitted that as per the record, a list of 470 eligible DWRs, who had completed seven years of continuous service, was prepared by the respondents for regularization against Class-IV vacancies under SRO 381 dated 26.08.1981. In this list, name of father of the petitioner figured at serial WP(C) No. 1046/2022 No. 63. The respondent had admitted that father of the petitioner died on 06.07.2017 before the process of regularization could culminate. It has been submitted that services of father of the petitioner never attained the status of permanency during his lifetime. The respondents have further submitted that the regularisation of the deceased father of the petitioner required relaxation of qualification bar and before the same could be done, he died on 06.07.2017. 6. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner was referred to in house Committee and the Committee in its meeting held on 21.02.2023 rejected his case on the ground that the services of father of the petitioner were never regularized as such, his case did not meet the eligibility criteria under SRO 43. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that father of the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Rated Worker with the respondent-Corporation. It is also not in dispute that deceased father of the petitioner was regularly working with the respondents from the date of his initial appointment on 01.12.1997 till the date of his death on 06.07.2017. The respondents have admitted that father of the petitioner before his death had acquired right to be considered for his regularization in Class-IV vacancy in terms of SRO 381 dated 26.08.1981 and his name figured at S. No. 63 in the list of DRWs, who were eligible for regularization. The fact, however, remains that father of the petitioner was never regularized in his service prior to his death. 9. The only question that is required to be determined is as to whether the benefit of compassionate appointment under SRO 43 can be extended in WP(C) No. 1046/2022 favour of dependant of a DRW, who at the time of his death had acquired the eligibility for regularisation of his services and his case was under consideration for regularization. 10. The aforesaid issue has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Veena Devi vs. State of J&K and others, 2017(3) JKJ[HC] 179. It would be apt to refer to paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment, which are reproduced as under: 7. The plea that the petitioner is not entitled to Compassionate appointment for the reason that the deceased was not a regular Government servant as at the time of his death would not have been available to the respondents had the deceased been regularized in his life time after he attained entitlement to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 on completion of seven years period as daily wager in the year 2000. 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, particularly so when such regularization has been ordered posthumously. This view is supported by the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sarojs case (supra). That apart, this Court in Sureksha Ranis case (supra) in a fact situation akin to that in this case has rejected the similar plea of the State holding that benefit under SRO 64 of 1994 is not for the benefit of regular employees or temporary Government employees alone and that the "petitioners husband was working on daily wages. He was performing duty in connection with the affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He would as such be entitled to benefit of Rules contained in SRO 43 of 1994". 8. Viewed thus, petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the deceased, cannot be denied compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 on the ground that her deceased husband had not been regularized by the time of his death. This writ petition, therefore, has strong merit and is allowed. Respondents are directed to finalize the case of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment and issue appointment order without any further delay, subject, however, to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria under SRO 43 of 1994. Let this judgment be complied with within eight weeks after petitioner produces a copy of this judgment in the office of respondent No. 3. 11. From the aforesaid analysis of legal position, it is clear that in a case where a Daily Rated Worker had acquired right to be considered for regularization, before his death, his dependant will have a right to be considered for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Safiya Begum vs. State of J&K and others, 2010 (1)JKJ[HC] 251 and SWP No. 2509 of 2016, titled, Jyoti Devi and others vs. State of J&K and others decided on 07.11.2017. WP(C) No. 1046/2022 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for accord of benefit of compassionate appointment in his favour on the ground that his father had not been regularized on Class-IV post, is not countenanced by law. Once it is shown that father of the petitioner had acquired right to regularisation of his services and his case was under consideration at the time of his death, the respondents are not legally justified to reject the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment before his death. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate basis in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 dated 22.12.1994 or any other rules/circular that may have replaced the aforesaid SRO, notwithstanding the fact that services of his father had not been regularized. 14. Having regard to the fact that the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, is to avoid financial hardship upon the family of a deceased employee due to his untimely death, it is directed that the respondents shall accord consideration to the case of the petitioner most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served by the petitioner in the office of the respondents. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 05.06.2026 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No