Hindus living in valley cannot claim benefits meant for Kashmiri Pandits: J&K HC

The petitioner, Rajeshwar Singh, contended that Hindus, besides the Sikh community residing in the valley have suffered as much and are bound to be the recipient of benefits similar to the ones extended to non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits.

Kashmiri-Pandits Kashmir-valley Jammu-and-Kashmir-pandits

Not every Hindu living in the Kashmir valley is a Kashmiri Pandit, said the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir rejecting a writ petition of the Sikh community of the Valley. The court in its judgement said that the Sikh community cannot be given the benefits of special job schemes and government recruitment that is meant for the Kashmiri Pandits. 

In his verdict on Tuesday, Justice Sanjeev Kumar stated: “Kashmiri Pandits are a separately identifiable community distinct from other Hindus residing in the Valley like Rajputs, Brahmins other than Kashmiri pandits, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and many others.”

The petitioner, Rajeshwar Singh, contended that Hindus, besides the Sikh community residing in the valley have suffered as much and are bound to be the recipient of benefits similar to the ones extended to non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits. The writ further argued that they are also entitled to the benefits of the Prime Minister’s Special Package and that the Sikh should be considered for the 500 posts reserved for non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits living in Kashmir Valley. 

The J&K High Court quashing the petition said that the argument that the other communities can be paired up as Kashmiri Pandits was "preposterous and cannot be accepted".

Also Read: Notice over lack of parking near Himachal's Chintpurni temple

“The only question that remains to be determined in this petition is whether the petitioners, who are, admittedly, not Kashmiri Pandits but belong to different castes of Hindus, can be brought within the definition of “Kashmiri Pandits,” the Court said.

“There is no denying the fact that in common parlance, Kashmiri Pandit is a community of Kashmiri speaking Brahmins living in the Valley for generations and are distinctly identified by their dress, customs and traditions,” the court said. 

“It is, thus, difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who are mostly Kshatriyas, Rajputs, Scheduled Caste non- Kashmiri Brahmins should be treated as Kashmiri pandits and admitted to the benefits of the Prime Minister’s revised package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri migrants.”

In 2009, under the leadership of then prime minister, Manmohan Singh a Prime Minister's package was released aiming to facilitate the return and rehabilitation in Kashmir Valley of Kashmiri migrants. Around 6,000 government jobs were published for the migrants’ Pandits. Out of which, 4,000 posts are filled, while 2,000 posts were recently issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board. Under the revised package that was announced in December 2020, the government had reserved the jobs for Pandits who have not migrated from Kashmir. However, such candidates need to produce "non-migration" issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioners, in order to verify that they had not migrated and were registered with the Commissioner (Relief).

Also Read: Explained: What is NEET Exemption Bill, which will be introduced by MK Stalin in TN?

The unhappy community then had submitted a petition before the HC seeking incorporation of them in the package, citing the beneficiaries cannot be limited to only one set.

The petitioners said the term "Kashmiri Pandits", used in SRO 425 of 2017, was wide enough to include all non-migrant communities and Hindu castes residing in the Kashmir Valley and have equally suffered as non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits".

“The parity sought by the Sikhs residing in the Valley who had not wake of 1990 turmoil, with the non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits for the purposes of implementation of Prime Minister’s Special Package of employment and rehabilitation has not been accepted by this Court and the classification made by SRO 425 of 2017 has been held to be valid, there is hardly any scope for the petitioners to raise the similar contention yet again,” noted the Court. 

 

 

 

 



Trending