Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 7: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while dismissing the petition filed by one Mumtaza Akhter, has imposed cost of Rs 50,000 for concealment of facts.
The petitioner was aggrieved of Order No.84-SKICC of 2024 dated 17.10.2024, whereby sanction was accorded to the temporary appointment of respondent Zeenath Rashid of Gogoo Chak Budgam, as Office Assistant/ Typist in SKICC under SRO 43 of 1994.
The petition was initially appointed as Daily Wager on 01.04.1994 and regularized retrospectively with effect from 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.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed, “there is a vast difference between the provisions of the Rules of 1994 and the Scheme of 2022, in as much as there is contrast mechanism given in the Scheme of 2022 for considering and making compassionate appointment as compared to the Rules of 1994, 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 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 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. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as the compassionate appointment of respondent has been made in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 (Rules of 1994) and same does not call for any interference”, the High Court said while dismissing the petition with cost of Rs 50,000 to be deposited by petitioner in Advocates Welfare Fund.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
