C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 whereby the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme was rejected. The further prayers of the petitioner are for a declaration that he is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground under the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to appoint him on the ground of his being a legal heir and dependant of deceased Sunil Raj. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is one of the siblings of one Sunil Raj who died- in-harness on 7.4.2011 while working as Assistant under the respondent. Pursuant to his death, their mother submitted an application for appointment of the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme. The said request was rejected as per Ext.P2 dated 1.2.2012. The contention of the petitioner is that he is one of the dependants of the deceased Sunil Raj and therefore, entitled to get appointment under the said scheme. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner produced Ext.P3 succession certificate before the respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed with the above mentioned prayers.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner's brother Sunil Raj had obtained appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme on the death of their father in harness while working under the respondent. Subsequent to the death of Sunil Raj, the mother submitted two applications before the respondent viz., one seeking to provide employment to the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme and the other one for disbursement of the benefits payable consequent to the death of Sunil Raj. Her request for appointment of the petitioner under the compassionate employment scheme was rejected as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the petitioner was not a dependant of late Sunil Raj. Ext.P2 is dated 1.2.2012. Subsequent to Ext.P2, the petitioner, his mother and sister filed O.P. (Succession) No.10/2012 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The widow of Sunil Raj was the respondent therein. Ext.P3 succession certificate certifies the petitioner, his mother and sister and the widow of late Sunil Raj as the legal heirs of late Sunil Raj. Based on Ext.P3, the mother of the petitioner received the amount sanctioned towards the death benefits of Sunil Raj. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 succession certificate would reveal that he is a dependant of the deceased Sunil Raj and therefore, he is entitled to get appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. There can be no doubt that Ext.P3 succession certificate certified only the heirship and not dependency and that dependency is distinctively different from heirship. True that a heir can also be a dependent for the purpose of employment assistance scheme. A bare perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that it was filed under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to collect the net amount due from LIC of India to the legal heirs of deceased Sunil Raj in respect of the scheduled amount of Rs.13,23,553 being the settlement of his death benefits and it was granted only for that purpose. In fact, Ext.P3 only certified the fact that the petitioner is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased Sunil Raj, but it did not carry and in fact, could not carry, any certification regarding dependancy. A proceeding for the grant of succession certificate is summary in nature and no rights of parties are finally decided in any such proceedings. The term 'heir' means one who on the death of another becomes entitled by operation of law of inheritance to succeed to the deceased person's estate and term 'heirship' means the state or condition of an heir. The term 'dependency' for the purpose of employment assistance scheme is related to the applicant's reliance on the deceased employee for