ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:

“To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting the letters sated 27.01.2022 and 15.02.2022.

To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis on suitable post with all consequential basis with interest @ 18 percent annum.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioner, Shri Rakesh Kumar, died on 6.12.2021 when he was working as Higher Grade Assistant (HGA) with the respondent corporation (LIC). At the time of death, he was survived by his wife Manju Lata, two sons Karan and Sagar, and two daughters Sapna and Surbhi, besides parents of deceased. On 05.01.2022, the mother of petitioner submitted an application to grant compassionate appointment to petitioner in place of her deceased husband Rakesh Kumar. The respondents had declined the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 27.1.2022 on the premise that daughter of late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Surbhi is gainfully employed with the government. The case of petitioner is that Surbhi had been married on 29.12.2021 even before making the application for compassionate appointment and, on date of consideration, Ms. Surbhi was not part of the family of the petitioner to take care of the family of the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Tarun Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan (2021 (1) RLW 583), has submitted that the respondents have ignored the relevant facts, representation and settled legal position and rejected the application of petitioner in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the rule and regulation of respondent LIC does not provide for denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that married daughter of deceased is gainfully employed with any other government institution.

4. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of H.P. Vs. Abhishek Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 280 and submitted that the marriage of Ms. Surbhi was already fixed and soon before the marriage, the father of petitioner expired, thereby leaving the family in lurch. He further referred the date of marriage of Surbhi and submitted that the bereaved family had even performed the marriage function of Surbhi in the month of December 2021 and after the marriage, Surbhi was not part of the family. He also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that on the date of application, not a single family member of petitioner was gainfully employed and there was no support for the family of petitioner from anywhere. He further submitted that the rules have to be given effect to so that they may serve the purpose, and in the instant case, the date of consideration and the provisions of the rules have to be considered by the respondents.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and submitted that the respondents are bound by LIC Recruitment (of Class III and IV Staff) Instruction, 1993 and as per inquiry conducted by respondents, the daughter of deceased Ms. Surbhi, was gainfully employed with effect from 15.07.2020 in the State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

6. He further referred the provisions for compassionate appointment and submitted that the issue of compassionate appointment has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468; LIC vs. Shri Asha Ramchandara Abedkar and another (1994) 2 SCC 718; Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138; Directorate of Education Secretary vs. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 3 SCR 342; State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. vs. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of M.P. and others AIR 1999 SC 2894; S. Mohan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1999) 1 LLJ 539 SC; HPSC vs. Harinder S