Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must consider the financial condition of the deceased employee's family, which was not in distress in this case.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for the Respondents.

1.1 With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this matter was taken-up for hearing and final disposal, today. Hence, RULE. Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, waives service for the Respondents.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the communication / order dated 01.12.2022, whereby, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to her son was rejected as well as the communication / order dated 28.12.2022, whereby, the petitioner’s representation to reconsider the case of her son for compassionate appointment was rejected.

2.1 The petitioner has also sought a direction qua the Respondents to grant compassionate appointment to her son.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the late husband of the petitioner, namely Vitthalbhai Jambu, was working as Administrative Officer with the Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation and he passed away, while in service, on 17.08.2022, leaving behind his bereaved wife, i.e. the present petitioner, a son, who at the relevant point of time was 23 years of age, and a daughter, who, at that point of time, was aged about 22 years and was pursuing her MD in Pharmacology.

3.1 According to the petitioner, the Respondent-LIC has framed regulations, known as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 , and as per the provisions of Regulation 4 thereof, it has issued certain instructions, which are called as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instructions, 1979 and Clause-21 thereof, pertains to relaxation in favour of near relatives of an employee, who passed away, while in service, or retires at least five years prior to the date of his superannuation.

3.2 Pursuant to the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application on 08.09.2022, seeking terminal benefits as well as the compassionate appointment for her son Parth, who was major / adult at that point of time. In other words, the petitioner also made a request to grant compassionate appointment to her son by way of application dated 08.09.2022, namely Parth, who was major at that point of time, which ultimately came to be rejected by the Respondents vide order dated 01.12.2022, on the ground that the family members of the petitioner are already gainfully employed.

3.3 Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.12.2022 to the Respondents with a request to reconsider the case of her son, Parth, for compassionate appointment. However, the said representation also came to be rejected vide order dated 28.02.2022.

Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner dated 08.09.2022 for grant of compassionate appointment to her son came to be rejected on the ground that her family is gainfully employed.

4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others’, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, wherein, the view is taken that an application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the family of a deceased employee has received service benefits in the event of death of an employee. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, further, held that it is totally irrelevant to take into consideration the amount, which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased employee and thereby, it was submitted that the present Respondents ought not to have rejected