JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Heard Shri Potbhare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.L. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company.

2. Rule. On request of learned Counsel for the respective parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner's father was working in the office of the respondent No. 3. He expired on 14-3-1989. After his death his widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20-11-1989. She was however, informed that her claim cannot be granted. Thereafter, present petitioner, her son, applied for appointment on the compassionate ground in class IV cadre. On scrutiny of his application, the respondent No. 3 found that the petitioner's elder brother is in employment and therefore, his application was rejected on the ground that when his elder brother was gainfully employed, his claim cannot be considered.

4. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel or the respondent No. 3 invites our attention to the decision in case of (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar)1, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2148 in support of his submission that in identical case, the Apex Court observed that the Court cannot direct appoi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document