Compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on pension benefits received by a family member, as it serves to address financial distress of the bereaved.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

1. The present appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 08.01.2025 in W.P.No.14995/2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. The appellants/Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LIC’) has been directed to consider the case for compassionate appointment of the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the son of late Shri Rajanna who was working in the office of the appellants/LIC as an Assistant Administrative Officer. The father of the respondent died while in service on 02.10.2020. On 19.10.2020, the son of the respondent made an application with the appellants/LIC seeking his appointment on compassionate grounds.

2.1. The respondent had relied upon the Clause 21 of the LIC of India, Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) which provides for compassionate appointment, to legal heirs of a deceased employee.

2.2. The application came to be rejected by the appellants/LIC stating that it was not possible to consider the appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds as his mother was drawing a pension from the Government.

3. Since the appellants/LIC rejected the application/representation of the respondent, the respondent was constrained to file a petition stating that he is entitled to compassionate appointment and that the receiving pension or family pension would not amount to income or gainful employment.

4. The learned Single Judge, by the Impugned Order has found that the respondent would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was further held that the Supreme Court in an identical situation in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others , (2005) 10 SCC 289 has held that compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that member of family is receiving terminal benefits.

5. The learned Single Judge thus passed the following order:

“…….

(iii) The respondent-LIC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of clause 21 of 1993 Instructions and provide employment to the petitioner as "Record Clerk" without reference to the pension/family pension or terminal benefits received by the mother of the petitioner by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA case (supra).

(iv) The respondent-LIC shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/-to the petitioner, within one month from today.

(v) Time for compliance, three months from the date of uploading of the order on the High Court website.” [Emphasis Supplied]

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/LIC submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity as all appointments on compassionate grounds are governed by the provision of the Clause 21 of the Scheme.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/LIC further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the condition of such appointment is only available in the case of a financial crisis and not otherwise.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that it is no longer res integra that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied on the basis of pensionary benefits drawn by the family. In addition, it is contended