- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 14995 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI G R NITHIN S/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.5/A, RANGANATHASWAMY NILAYA, 14TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGARA, 2ND STAGE, HASSAN-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARGAVI D NAYAK, ADV. FOR SRI. DEVENDRAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, ”YOGAKSHEMA” CENTRAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC OF INDIA, MYSORE-570015. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYENDRA D JOSHI, ADV.) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENTS ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E AND F DATED 21.11.2020, 04.01.2021 AND 26.04.2021 AS THE SAME ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the endorsements at Annexure-D dated 21.11.2020, Annexure-E dated 04.01.2021and Annexure-F dated 26.04.2021 issued by respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is in receipt of pension and that the petitioner’s family has received gratuity and other death benefits. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner is the son of one Late Rajanna who was working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short “LIC”) at Hassan Branch. The father of the petitioner Rajanna died while in service on 02.10.2020. On the death of father of the petitioner, benefits accruing from the death of Rajanna were disbursed to the mother of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had made an application/representation dated 19.10.2020 requesting the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner had passed SSLC. The petitioner received an endorsement dated 21.11.2020 (Annexure-D) informing that the competent authority has found it not possible to consider the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as his mother is drawing pension from the Government and it is considered as gainful employment. Thereafter, the petitioner received one more communication dated 04.01.2021 on the appeal filed by the petitioner, stating - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 that the family of the deceased employee Late Rajanna consists of his wife K.N.Hemavathi, a retired teacher, drawing monthly pension of Rs.25,050/- and that the family has received death benefits, such as, Gratuity, GTIS, Term Assurance and Lumpsum in lieu of leave encashment, Group term Insurance etc., hence not entitled for compassionate appointment. The competent authority has found it not possible to reconsider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent-Chairman and the second respondent on behalf of the first respondent by communication dated 26.04.2021 informed the petitioner that the competent authority has found it not possible to reconsider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as his mother is having sufficient income to take care of the family. Questioning the endorsements at Annexures-D, E and F, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 3. Heard learned counsel Smt.Bhargavi D Nayak for Sri.Devendrappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vijayendra D Joshi, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner along with his mother made a representation/application dated 19.10.2020 requesting to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner, who has passed SSLC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Clause 21 of LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 (for short “1993 Instructions”) provides for compassionate appointment to any of the legal heirs of a deceased employee of LIC. Learned counsel would also submit that in terms of the above stated instructions, the petitioner would be entitled for appointment as Record Clerk for which, pass in SSLC would be sufficient qualification. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 5. Learned counsel referring to the endorsements issued by the respondent-LIC submits that receiving pension or family pension would not amount to gainful income or gainful employment. Further, learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA v/s LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family is receiving terminal benefits or that the family pension is being paid to the widow of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that despite decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in LIC case itself, the respondent-authorities have failed to follow the judgment in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA (supra). Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Vijayendra D Joshi for respondent-LIC would vehemently opposes the prayer of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 the petitioner contending that the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment since his mother is receiving pension and the petitioner’s family has received terminal benefits. Learned counsel would submit that receiving pension as indicated in the endorsement would amount to gainful income, as such, in terms of 1993 instructions, the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would not possess qualification for appointment as Class-III employee. As such, the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment in the respondent-LIC. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and shall have to be considered in accordance with the Rules or Scheme available with the Authorities. He submits that object of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 crisis and it is submitted that in the instant case, there was no financial crisis to the family of the petitioner. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS v/s ARVINDKUMAR T TIWARI AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 and in the case of DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY) AND ANOTHER v/s PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 5 SCC 192. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers along with case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent-LIC. The endorsements issued by the respondent-authorities are opposed to their own 1993 Instructions as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 arising out of LIC itself (Govind Prakash Verma) (supra). The respondent-LIC has suffered an order at the hands of Hon'ble Apex Court in an identical fact situation. 9. The petitioner, son of deceased Rajanna, who was working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India made a representation/application dated 19.10.2020 along with his mother, requesting for an appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has admittedly passed SSLC. In terms of 1993 Instructions, the petitioner has qualification for being appointed as “Record Clerk” which requires qualification of pass in SSLC examination. The petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is receiving pension and family of the petitioner has received terminal death benefits, such as, Gratuity, GTIS, Term Assurance and Lumpsum in lieu of leave encashment, as well as family pension. Receiving death benefits, pension as well as family pension would - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 not debar a person from seeking compassionate appointment. Receiving pension or family pension cannot be considered as gainful employment or gainful income to deny compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA case (supra) wherein respondent-LIC itself was party has made it clear that receiving any amount admissible under the Rules and receiving family pension would not amount to gainful income or gainful employment. In GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA also respondent-LIC had refused compassionate appointment on the ground that family of the deceased was receiving family pension and had received benefits admissible under Rules and also stating that the applicant’s brother had agricultural income. Rejecting the contention of the respondent-LIC, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 4 and 6 has held as follows: “4. In pursuance of the said order an officer of LIC appears to have made some enquiry and submitted his report dated 27-4-2002. In the report, he repeats about the family pension which is being paid to the widow of the deceased and the amount which was - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 received as terminal benefits admissible under the Rules. Thereafter, it is mentioned in the report that the elder brother of the complainant is engaged as a painter but he did not disclose his income. Earlier, it is mentioned that he had said that he was engaged in cultivation. The officer inferred that the employment of the elder son of the deceased was being concealed. He also observed that at some places the statement of the elder brother was contradictory. Ultimately, the officer deputed to make enquiries, comes to the conclusion: “Because of the contradictory nature of statements made by the elder son as also the facts mentioned above the appointment of Govind Prakash Verma on compassionate ground is not maintainable.” It is a brief report containing the above conclusions. There is no report in regard to other factors which the learned Single Judge had indicated in his order, upon which also he was required to submit his report. There is specific mention of the case of the appellant in the order saying that the elder brother was engaged in cultivation and was living separately. But the officer who seems to have enquired into the matter, in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, totally omitted to furnish any report on the points, indicated above, as required by the High Court. They seem to be obsessed by the fact that the widow of the deceased is getting family pension and some good amount was paid to them as terminal benefits. The learned Single Judge while passing the final order takes those factors into account, namely, the family pension and other amounts which had been received as terminal benefits of the service and it is said that since the authorities have arrived at certain findings it would not be appropriate to go into - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 those matters, thus he accepted the same and dismissed the petition. 5. xxxxxx 6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. This statement is said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elder brother had stated that he works as a painter. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the inference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might casually be getting work as painter also. Nothing has been indicated in the enquiry report as to where he was employed as a regular painter. The other aspects, on which the officer was required to make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not a whisper is - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 found in the report submitted by the officer. In the above circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the High Court are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refused compassionate appointment to the appellant. The inference of gainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon. The terminal benefits received by the widow and the family pension could not be taken into account. 10. In the case on hand, mother of the petitioner is receiving pension. Pension is provided to petitioner’s mother for her past service and for her livelihood in the evening of her life. Therefore, receiving pension or family pension cannot be considered as gainful income or employment. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner would not possess qualification for appointment to any of the posts. The said submission is without looking into 1993 Instructions of respondent-LIC. Annexure-III to 1993 Instructions prescribes relaxation in educational qualifications and age in respect of Spouse, Son or unmarried Daughter of an employee who dies while in service or retires at least 5 years prior to date of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 superannuation. In that, qualification prescribed for Record Clerk is pass in SSLC. 12. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the entire case, it appears that action of the respondent-LIC is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and endorsements issued are contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA case. By the said action of the respondent-LIC, the very object and purpose of compassionate appointment is defeated. Main purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to see that family of deceased to overcome the financial penury. Action like the present one in the matter of compassionate appointment shall have to be avoided. For issuing endorsement contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA case wherein the respondent-LIC is party, the respondent-LIC is liable to pay cost to the petitioner. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:640 WP No. 14995 of 2021 (ii) The endorsements at Annexure-D dated 21.11.2020, Annexure-E dated 04.01.2021 and Annexure-F dated 26.04.2021 are quashed. (iii) The respondent-LIC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of clause 21 of 1993 Instructions and provide employment to the petitioner as “Record Clerk” without reference to the pension/family pension or terminal benefits received by the mother of the petitioner by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA case (supra). (iv)The respondent-LIC shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, within one month from today. (v) Time for compliance, three months from the date of uploading of the order on the High Court website. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms