ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. This appeal relates to appointment of the dependant of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds. One Fakir Mohan Nayak was employed as Peon with the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (for short "MMTC"). While thus employed he died on 21-9-1990. He had been married to Pramoda Dei, respondent herein. They were legally separated since 6-7-1985. The respondent was being paid by the deceased employee a sum of Rs 200 per month towards maintenance. The said employee had started living with another woman, Savitri Nayak, and had four children from her. Rule 18 of the MMTC (Staff Recruitment) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides as under :

"18. Appointments of dependants of employees who die in harness/or disabled permanently. The Chairman/Director (P) may appoint a direct dependant of a regular employee of the Corporation who either dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service of the Corporation, to any of the posts mentioned in Appendix II of these Rules by relaxing the age and qualifications prescribed for such appointment." (pp. 31-32) 3. Savitri Nayak claiming to be the second wife of Fakir Mohan Nayak submitted an application for grant of employment as the direct dependant of the deceased employee. Since the said application was not accepted by MMTC Savitri Nayak filed a writ petition (being OJC No. 4968 of 1992) in the Orissa High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by judgment dated 29-10-1992 whereby MMTC was directed to employ Savitri Nayak in any job for which she is suitable. In pursuance of the said direction given by the High Court, MMTC, by their letter dated 12-5-1993, offered the job to Savitri Nayak. Thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal (being OJC No. 3010 of 1993) in the Orissa High Court wherein she also sought appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 18 of the Rules. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 28-2-1994. The High Court has rejected the contention urged on behalf of MMTC

"We have no hesitation to hold that Rule 18 of the MMTC (Staff Recruitment) Rules is the rule providing for rehabilitation appointment and that in all cases where rehabilitation appointment becomes due because of death of an employee in harness or for his permanent disability, such appointment is to be given except where it can be refused on any germane ground such as ineligibility, incapacitation or unsuitability of the person seeking appointment. We hence do not agree with the submission of Mr Mitra that the question of giving rehabilitation appointment is the absolute discretion of the Chairman. " (p. 5) The High Court has directed MMTC to afford a rehabilitation appointment to the respondent suitable to her eligibility within two months of the receipt of the writ from the Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants, viz., the Managing Director of MMTC and the Deputy General Manager of MMTC filed this appeal.

4. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that under Rule 18 a discretion has been given to the Chairman/Director (Personnel) in the matter of appointment of a direct dependant of a regular employee of MMTC who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service of MMTC and that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ directing the appellants to give a a rehabilitation appointment to the respondent and all that could be done was that the High Court could have directed the competent authority to consider the matter of giving rehabilitation appointment to the respondent. In support of the said submission, Shri Salve has invited our attention to the recent decision of this Court in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar wherein this Court was considering the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of