O R D E R

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that, her father late Valentine Devakumar, served as Assistant Manager in the respondent Insurance Company and died on 18.12.2015, while he was in service. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent, seeking appointment on compassionate ground, to provide appointment to her daughter. The Divisional Manager, Trichy, forwarded the representation submitted by the mother of the writ petitioner for consideration. However, the said application was rejected by the second respondent on 17.08.2016, on the ground that the petitioner is not wholly a dependant daughter of the deceased employee . The petitioner filed W.P.No. 4339 of 2017, directing the first respondent to consider the application dated 10.12.2016 for compassionate appointment. This Court, passed an order dated 22.02.2017, directing the first respondent therein to consider the appeal/representation dated 10.12.2016, on merits and in accordance with law.

3. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent issued the order impugned dated 30.06.2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, made a submission that the petitioner has to take care of her differently abled sister and her aged mother. Thus, the family is in indigent circumstance and there is no specific impediment for considering the married daughter for providing compassionate appointment. In the absence of express bar, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, furnished a copy of the Scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companie. The scheme was not in force from 2022-2014 and it was re- implemented through another Scheme dated 12.11.2014. The father of the writ petitioner, died in December, 2015 and therefore the scheme re- introduced in the year 2014 would be applicable to the case of the writ petitioner. As per the Scheme, the dependant family members are enumerated as under:

''2. Dependent Family Member

2.1 Spouse; or

2.2 Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or

2.3. Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter), or

2.4. Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee''

6. Accordingly, wholly dependant daughter (including legally adopted daughter), is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Question arises whether the married daughter can be construed as wholly dependant daughter of the deceased employee. The statute rules or scheme or its terms and conditions cannot be interpreted otherwise and to be interpreted in its own language. Wholly dependant daughter includes the daughters who all are the dependants of the deceased employee. A married daughter constitute a separate family and in the present case, the petitioner, after her marriage living with her husband. Therefore, she cannot be considered as wholly dependent daughter of the deceased employee. Even the dependent married daughters cannot be considered as wholly dependent daughters. Therefore, the term “wholly dependent daughter'' is to be interpreted and to cover the daughters living along with the deceased employee and the daughters who all are wholly dependent with deceased employee.

7. In the present case, the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly dependent, as she got married and living along with her husband separately. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under the Scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companies. The reasons stated in the impugned order is in consonance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme.

8. Compassionate appointment is a concession. Thus, cannot be