- (1.) TARUN Chatterjee, C. J. One Haribansh Dwivedi was an employee in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the LIC' ). He was the father of the writ petitioner- respondent. He died in harness on 23rd May, 1995 leaving behind his widow and five sons. The writ petitioner-respondent applied for service in the LIC in terms of Instruction No. 21 of the LIC Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Instructions, 1993 ). The application of the writ petitioner-respondent was rejected by the authorities of the LIC, against which a writ application was moved by the writ petitioner- respondent. By the impugned order a learned Judge of this Court directed the LIC to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent for employment on compassionate ground.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the LIC has come up before us by means of the present Special Appeal. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the LIC has drawn our attention to Clause 21 of the Instructions, 1993, which reads as under : " (i) There shall be relaxation in upper age limits and educational qualifications in favour of near relatives as defined in (ii) below, of an employee who dies while in service as prescribed in Annexure-III hereto. . . . (ii) Such relaxation shall be admissible only in favour of a spouse, son or unmarried daughter of the employee. (iii) The relaxation shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family-spouse, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed. . . (iv) The relaxation shall be admissible either to the spouse or to one of the children as specified. " (Emphasis is supplied) Dr. Padia relying on the said Clause 21 of the Instructions, 1993 submitted that since two sons of the deceased were 'gainfully employed' the writ petitioner-respondent could not be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent contended that since two sons of the deceased were living in their father-in-law's house long before the death of the deceased and they were separated from the family of the deceased, neither the said two sons can be said to be the members of the family of the deceased nor it can be said that since two sons were 'gainfully employed' another son, namely the writ petitioner-respondent could not be considered for appointment on the compassionate ground. From a perusal of the impugned order of the learned Judge it appears that the learned Judge has held that the two sons of the deceased cannot be said to be 'gainfully employed' as they are staying in their father-in-law's house. According to the learned Judge the two sons cannot also be considered to be the members of the family of the deceased.;