news details |
|
|
| HC dismissed petition with costs Rs 50000 | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 7: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while dismissing the petition filed by Mumtaza Akhter imposed costs of Rs 50000/- for making concealment.
Petitioner is aggrieved of Order No.84-SKICC of 2024 dated 17.10.2024, whereby sanction has been accorded to the temporary appointment of respondent No.3, Ms. Zeenath Rashid D/o Late Abdul Rashid Wani R/o Gogoo Chek Budgam, as Office Assistant/Typist, in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200, revised to level-2 (19900-63200 GP 1900), in SKICC under SRO 43 of 1994 and seeks quashing thereof.
Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of instant petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Daily Wager on 01.04.1994 and regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2001 vide order dated 06.12.2013. The petitioner, in terms of order dated 30.12.2017, was confirmed and posted as Dak Runner and was figuring at S. No.1 as being the senior most among all the regularized Helpers. She for last 31 years remained stagnant and was not promoted as she was not regularized in time, as such, requested for considering her for next promotion and also for time bound promotion. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner being borne on the strength of SKICC and after rendering more than 31 years of unblemished service is presently working as Dak Runner falling under Category 11, Class-1 and is to be promoted as Jamadar (Category 10 Class 1) after 05 years and after 06 years as Dispatch Clerk/Record Keeper (Category 9 Class 1) and thereafter as Office Assistant (Category 8 (a) Class 1) as the petitioner is due to be promoted as Office Assistant having completed 05 years in 2006 and more than 06 years in 2012 and being senior most figuring at S. No.1 is due to be promoted 12 years back to the post of Office Assistant, but was not promoted and was kept awaited more particularly after 2013 when she was regularized w.e.f. 2001.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing both the sides observed that perusal of both would show that there is a vast difference between the provisions of the Rules of 1994 and the Scheme of 2022, inasmuch as there is contrast mechanism given in the Scheme of 2022 for considering and making compassionate appointment as compared to the Rules of1994, that is why petitioner has made her all out efforts in writ petition on the provisions of the Scheme of 2022 to contend that compassionate appointment of respondent no.3 has been made under and in terms of the Scheme of 2022, notwithstanding the fact that the Proviso to Clause 18 of the Scheme of 2022, which had not been placed on record by petitioner with his writ petition, makes in clear cut terms obvious and demonstratable that the cases, if any pending, falling under Rules of 1994 can be considered and decided under the said Rules of 1994 and not under the Scheme of 2022. For making such concealment, petitioner is liable to be put to task by directing her to pay costs.
Insofar as reliefs sought for by petitioner in writ petition are concerned, High Court held that petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as the compassionate appointment of respondent no.3 has been made in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 (Rules of 1994) and same does not call for any interference. As a consequence of which, writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by petitioner in Advocates Welfare Fund.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
