ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 02-12-2024 Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajnikant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“I. That, the order contained in letter dt.2.7.24 vide ref-ECZO/P&IR/Comp. Apptt. passed by respondent No.3, on behalf of Competent Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India be quashed and set aside.

II. That, the order contained in letter reference No.PDO-II/PIR/2024-25/compass. Apptt. dt.14.5.24, passed on behalf of Competent Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India be also quashed and set aside.

III. That, petitioner further prays for, in consequence of quashing of said order dt.2.7.24 and 14.5.24 son of petitioner Mr. Nishchay, second child of deceased employee, may kindly be directed to be appointed on compassionate ground, on Group C post in the office of respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India.

IV. That, for any other relief (s) for which petitioner is found entitled on the facts of this case and also in the eye of law.

Brief Facts:

3. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on

15.07.2020 while he was working as Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna leaving behind his wife, one major daughter and two minor sons. Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner could not file application for her appointment on compassionate ground and her major daughter was also not willing for the same. When her son attained majority on 24.04.2023, the petitioner who cannot sustain her family due to her poor financial position, had applied for providing appointment to her son on compassionate ground on 12.05.2023 for the first time and again represented on 12.12.2023, but no consideration was made by the respondents and rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that without considering the provisions contained in LIC Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instruction, 1993 (with modification incorporated till 31.03.2020), the respondents have rejected the application for considering the case of the petitioner’s son on compassionate ground solely on the ground that the application has been made after the lapse of one year. Learned counsel further submitted that no assessment was made in respect of the financial position of the family of the petitioner and rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that two adult members i.e. the wife and the daughter of the deceased employee, just after the death of the deceased employee had not applied for their compassionate appointment. Without considering the financial condition of the second son of the petitioner and the family of the petitioner, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain on mere technicality.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajnikant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents referring to para-5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure- P/7) and 02.07.2024 (Annexure- P/9) and considering the amendment made in Clause No. 21(v) of the LIC Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instruction, 1993 (with modification incorporated till 31.03.2020), (Annexure- R/1) , the time limit from three years have been reduced to one year and in view of the said extant provision, the application of the petitioner which was filed after the lapse of one year, has rightly been rejected.

Analysis and Conclusion: -

6. Heard the parties.

7. The case of the respondent is that an application was filed on behalf of the second son of the petitioner on 12.05.2023 while his father had died in harness on 15.07.2020 w