Compassionate appointments cannot be ordered without statutory regulations and in the absence of penurious conditions justifying such appointments.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by M/s. India trade promotion organisation, New Delhi is directed against the Order dated october 14, 1993 of the learned single judge passed in writ petition No. 21825 of 1993. (M. Usha Ramaprasad v. M/s. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi and Another) allowing the writ petition of respondent-Smt. M. Usha ramaprasad and directing appellant to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds to any suitable post within two months.

( 2 ) THE argument of learned counsel on both sides are heard.

( 3 ) THE appellant is a public undertaking under ministry of commerce. Indisputably, the respondent's husband was working as deputy regional manager in the appellant organisation at bangalore and he met with an accident and died on 31-12-1992 while in service. He left behind his respondent-widow and a son who was aged 13 years. The respondent, who is a science graduate, gave her representation to the appellant organisation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband. Her said representation was rejected by appellant by its Order dated 2-4-1993 produced at annexure-a, as no suitable post was available.

( 4 ) THE appellant's Order at annexure-a was challenged by the respondent in the said writ petition No. 21825 of 1993 and she prayed therein for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. appellant filed its statement of objections resisting her petition on the grounds that appellant was not under a legal duty to grant her appointment on compassionate grounds and that she had been paid by the appellant a substantial amount of rs. 1,35,718/- towards monetary benefits payable on account of her husband's death while in service, and she is also getting the family pension of Rs. 2,500/- from january, 1993. Further objection of appellant was that apart from the above amount respondent also received the sum of Rs. 82,330/- towards retirement benefits on retirement of her husband from his earlier service in coffee board. In addition, she was also getting monthly rent for her husband's house in bangalore city. besides, she will inherit three valuable house sites of her husband which are all situate in bangalore city.

( 5 ) THE learned judge holding the affluent circumstance of respondent created by death of her husband, as stated by appellant, as of immaterial consequence, was pleased to pass the impugned Order allowing her writ petition solely on the ground that her husband died while in service of the latter.

( 6 ) THE legality of the Order under appeal stands assailed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shylendra Kumar, on two grounds. Firstly, there being no statutory regulations or the scheme framed by the appellant organisation governing appointment on compassionate grounds of a member of the family of its deceased employee dying in harness, the appellant was not under any legal obligation to appoint respondent as requested by her. Secondly, financially respondent was in such as sound and comfortable position at the time of her husband's death that the same did not warrant her appointment on compassionate grounds. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on recent decisions of Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) And another and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent argued in support of the impugned Order relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others. she maintained that there was no sufficient justification for the appellant to reject respondent's request for appointment on compassionate grounds, more so, when her case for appointment was recommended by the concerned regional manager of the appellant organisation.

( 8 ) THE reason given in the impugned Order by the learned judge for allowing the respondent