JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

2. In this petition, a desperate plea for appointment under the die in harness scheme has been turned down by the authorities as being bound by a rigid law governing the field.

3. The petitioner is a claimant for compassionate appointment on the demise of her sister who was earlier serving in the Oriental Insurance Company, and who though married, was subsequently widowed without leaving any issue. The Company expressed inability to provide appointment to the petitioner on the ground that as per the rules the petitioner is not entitled to claim such appointment as her sister was married.

4. As we proceed to examine the issue, it will be apposite to refer to certain basic background facts a little more in detail.

5. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, possessing Master's Degree in English with MBA and other academic accomplishments, is the sister of one Grizelva Mahanta who was serving as a Stenographer Grade III in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who died while in harness on 14.12.2016, who at the time of death was 53 years having more than 8 years of service to her credit before reaching the age of superannuation.

6. The petitioner's sister, Grizelva Mahanta was married but unfortunately her husband predeceased her in the year 1998 leaving behind no issue. It has been also stated that the relatives of the predeceased husband of Grizelva Mahanta are all married having sufficient means of income of their own and not dependent on Grizelva Mahanta and were living separately.

7. It is also claimed that the petitioner's sister Grizelva Mahanta was staying with her parent's family consisting of the present petitioner, her unmarried sister and their mother. Grizelva Mahanta, the petitioner's sister was thus looking after the family consisting of the petitioner, her sister, both unmarried, and their mother and they were wholly dependent upon Grizelva Mahanta for their livelihood. In fact, late Grizelva Mahanta nominated her mother in various nomination forms so submitted with the respondent Company.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner, being well educated and eligible, applied for appointment to a post under the die in harness scheme.

8. The authorities though expressed sympathy to the plea of the petitioner expressed regret in not entertaining the petitioner's request vide letter dated 22.03.2018 stating that as per records her sister was married to Mr. Arun Chandra Sarma on 3.10.1987 because of which the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under the scheme.

9. It has been contended by the respondent Company that since the employee concerned, i.e., the petitioner's sister was married, the scheme will not be applicable to the petitioner.

10. Furthermore, it has been stated that after the death of Grizelva Mahanta, the mother of the deceased, being her nominee had received a large amount towards terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 45,10,588/- which would disentitle her to any claim for compassionate appointment. The details of the financial benefits given to the family members of the deceased employee are as follows.

It has been accordingly contended that the petitioner or her relatives cannot be said to be in acute financial position so as to entitle appointment under the die in harness scheme.

11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.

12. Before we pr