Compromise deed between wives and children regarding pension and SRO 43 benefits is upheld.

The dispute concerns pensionary benefits and appointment under SRO 43 following the death of Mohd. Sharief on June 19, 2017, who was serving as a Senior Pharmacist in the Animal Husbandry Department.

Three distinct Original Applications were filed: O.A. No. 707/2025 by Anjum Ara (first wife), O.A. No. 1032/2025 by Shayesta Begum (second wife), and O.A. No. 1768/2025 by Uzma Parveen and Nighat Parveen (daughters).

Anjum Ara sought family pension and arrears as the first wife.

Shayesta Begum sought the release of her family pension which was stopped and arrears.

Uzma Parveen and Nighat Parveen sought 50% salary.

The parties subsequently executed a compromise deed dated February 26, 2026, in the presence of their advocates.

Whether the compromise deed executed between the parties regarding the distribution of pensionary benefits and SRO 43 appointment benefits should be accepted by the Tribunal.

Whether the family pension should be paid exclusively to Shayesta Begum, the second wife, along with arrears, as per the compromise deed.

Whether the son of the first wife, Idrees Bhat, should continue to enjoy the benefits of appointment under SRO 43, as per the compromise deed.

The court applied the principles of settling disputes through mutual compromise agreements.

While not explicitly stated, the Tribunal's acceptance of the compromise deed implies an application of the general legal principle that courts can recognize and enforce valid agreements reached between parties, especially in family or inheritance-related disputes, to ensure finality and amicable resolution.

The benefits under SRO 43/1994 refer to compassionate appointment rules.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had placed on record a compromise deed dated February 26, 2026, which was executed between them in the presence of their respective advocates.

The terms of this deed were clear: the son of the first wife, Idrees Bhat, who was appointed under SRO 43/1994, would retain his service benefits, and none of the other parties would have a claim over them.

Furthermore, the second wife, Shayesta Begum, was granted exclusive right and entitlement over the family pension, including pending arrears, which she had been receiving since 2017 under PPO No. 141760302.

The court found this compromise deed acceptable and decided to dispose of the petitions accordingly.

It directed the respondent to continue the payment of family pension to Shayesta Begum, the second wife, forthwith.

The respondent was also directed to pay all arrears of family pension to Shayesta Begum, from the date it was stopped, within twelve weeks from March 05, 2026.

Finally, it was held that the son of the first wife shall continue to enjoy the benefits of compassionate appointment under SRO 43.