Deemed Cessation of Service Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively to Deny Compassionate Appointment Absent Formal Termination.

The applicant’s father, Late Sh. Tara Singh, was a permanent employee (Gas Man) in the J&K School Education Department who died in harness on 16.01.2012

Following his death, the applicant’s mother applied for compassionate appointment for her son under SRO 43 of 1994, which the department initially processed by seeking reports

However, the respondents later rejected the claim via orders dated 16.06.2014 and 14.10.2020, asserting that the deceased had been unauthorizedly absent since 1997 and was "deemed" out of employment under Article 113 of the J&K Civil Service Rules

The applicant challenged these orders, noting that no formal termination or disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated during his father’s lifetime and that the department had admitted the service book was lost due to staff negligence

1. Whether an employee can be "deemed" to have ceased employment due to absence without a formal inquiry or termination order, thereby disentitling his dependents from compassionate appointment

2. Whether the respondents could validly reject the claim of compassionate appointment based on internal assumptions of absence when they failed to maintain the employee's service records

The Tribunal applied SRO 43 of 1994, which provides for compassionate appointment to dependents of government employees who die in harness

Article 113 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules regarding "deemed" cessation of service due to five years of continuous absence

The principle from Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K (2003) that technical objections cannot defeat compassionate claims if a subsisting service connection exists

Constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, which require the State to act as a "model employer" and provide fair, non-discriminatory treatment

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents could not retrospectively apply a "deemed cessation" of service after an employee's death to defeat a compassionate claim

It held that unless a formal order of termination or dismissal is passed following due process and notice during the employee's lifetime, the service relationship remains intact

The Tribunal noted that the department’s own conduct—initially processing the application and seeking reports—contradicted their later stance that the father was not an employee

Furthermore, the Tribunal found it inequitable for the respondents to rely on the absence of records to the applicant's detriment, especially since they admitted the service book was lost due to their own administrative lapses

The delay in the case was attributed entirely to the respondents' inaction and non-compliance with previous High Court directions

It held that the deceased was never legally removed from service, and thus the applicant is entitled to consideration under SRO 43

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant to a Class-IV or equivalent post within 12 weeks

The Tribunal ordered that the appointment relate back to 14.10.2020 for the purpose of seniority only, with no back wages for the period not worked