Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mudasir Ahmad Tantray vs Union Territory Of J And K … on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
140
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 302/2026
MUDASIR AHMAD TANTRAY ..... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. M. Saleem, Advocate.
V/s
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.COMMR/SECTY (GAD) AND
OTHERS ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy. AG
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
ORDER
06.04.2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, is
seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider and
decide his case for compassionate appointment under
SRO 43 in accordance with law.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, his father Mohd Shaban
Tantray was killed in militancy related incident in the year
2001 regarding which FIR No. 108/2001 for offence
under Section 302 of RPC and 7/25 of the Arms Act came
to be registered with the Police Station, Pattan.
3. It has been submitted that respondent No. 2 has already
granted sanction for ex-gratia relief of Rs. 1.00 lac in
Page |2
WP(C) No. 302/2026
favour of the legal heirs of deceased father of the petitioner
in terms of order dated 05.11.2002. But at the time of
death of the father of the petitioner, he was a minor as
such, he could not be extended benefit of compassionate
appointment in terms of SRO 43. It has been submitted
that the petitioner has furnished all the requisite
documents to the respondents and applied for grant of
compassionate appointment in his favour but it seems that
because of pendency of FIR No. 184/2021 for offences
under Sections 147. 323, 325, 341 and 506 IPC registered
at Police Station, Pattan against the petitioner, the
respondents are not processing the case of the petitioner.
It has been submitted that the aforesaid FIR has arisen out
of land dispute between the co-sharers and as such, it
cannot form an impediment in considering the case of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner would feel satisfied if the respondents are
directed to take a decision with regard to the claim of the
Page |3
WP(C) No. 302/2026
petitioner for appointment under SRO 43 in accordance
with law within a specified period.
5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of
the petitioner with regard to grant of compassionate
appointment in his favour in accordance with law and the
rules/guidelines governing the field most expeditiously
preferably within a period of two months from the date a
copy of this order is made available to respondent No. 2.
6. Disposed of as above.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
06.04.2026
Aasif
[ad_1]
Source link
