Salary deductions for in-laws’ maintenance require statutory or appointment-based authority and cannot rest solely on compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s husband, a government employee, died in harness on 23 December 2016.

After litigation before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, she was appointed as a Nursing Orderly, Class IV, on compassionate grounds under the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, vide appointment order dated 30 September 2019.

The applicant’s parents-in-law complained that she was not maintaining them, despite receiving salary and family pension.

Acting on the complaint, the Deputy Director, Health Services, directed deduction of ₹20,000 per month from the applicant’s salary and payment of that amount to her mother-in-law.

The applicant challenged the direction, contending that neither the 1994 Rules nor her appointment order authorised such deduction and that she had been denied a proper hearing.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal stayed the impugned direction subject to the applicant depositing ₹10,000 per month in the parents’ account as an interim arrangement.

1. Whether, in the absence of any provision in the applicable compassionate appointment rules or the applicant’s appointment order, the respondents could impose an obligation upon her to maintain her parents-in-law and deduct ₹20,000 per month from her salary.

2. Whether the affidavit allegedly furnished by the applicant constituted lawful authority or consent for compulsory salary deductions, particularly after its validity and effect had been disputed.

3. Whether Rules 13 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2022 could be applied retrospectively to an appointment made in 2019 under the 1994 Rules.

4. Whether the applicant was entitled to refund of the amounts already deducted pursuant to the impugned order.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the application was instituted, and the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, which regulate compassionate appointments; the Rules do not themselves authorise compulsory salary deductions for maintenance of the deceased employee’s dependants.

Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a dependent family member facing financial distress, but its object cannot enlarge the legal conditions of appointment beyond the governing rules and the appointment order.

A recurring deduction from salary, which has the character of property and may affect livelihood, must be supported by statutory or other lawful authority.

An undertaking or affidavit does not automatically empower an employer to deduct a specified amount unless it expressly authorises such deduction or the authority is otherwise traceable to law.

Rules 13 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2022 could not retrospectively impose conditions upon an appointment made in 2019 under the earlier scheme.

The Tribunal also distinguished Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192, holding that although the decision recognises the object of compassionate appointment, it does not confer administrative power to appropriate part of an appointee’s salary.

The applicant’s appointment order contained conditions concerning the nature of appointment, probation, transferability, verification of certificates, and character and antecedents, but did not require her to maintain her parents-in-law or authorise deductions from her salary.

The respondents failed to identify any provision in the 1994 Rules, the appointment order, or any other applicable law conferring power upon the Deputy Director to impose a recurring monetary liability or deduct a fixed amount from the applicant’s salary.

The alleged affidavit could not cure this legal deficiency, particularly because the applicant disputed its validity and contended that it did not amount to consent to a ₹20,000 deduction.

Even assuming that it contained an undertaking to provide care or maintenance, it did not establish authority for compulsory salary recovery.

The parents-in-law’s possible entitlement to maintenance was distinct from the employer’s administrative power to deduct salary; any such claim had to be pursued before the competent forum under the applicable maintenance law.

The 2022 Scheme was inapplicable because the applicant’s appointment predated it, and the amount of ₹20,000 had also been fixed without a comprehensive assessment of the parties’ financial resources, liabilities, and actual needs.

The communication/order dated 1 September 2023 was therefore quashed and set aside, and the respondents were restrained from making further deductions pursuant to it.

The claim for refund of amounts already paid was declined, considering the circumstances and the nature of the payments made during the proceedings.

The interim arrangement requiring the applicant to deposit ₹10,000 per month ceased to operate upon pronouncement of the final order.

The order did not prevent the parents-in-law from pursuing any independent legal remedy for maintenance or other legally enforceable benefits.

No order as to costs was made.