Gujarat High Court: In an application filed by the petitioner against the rejection of her representations seeking compassionate appointment for her son from Life Insurance Corporation (‘LIC’), a Single Judge Bench of Nirzar S. Desai, J., dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner had no right to claim compassionate appointment on behalf of her major son. The Court also held that her application deserved to be rejected on the ground of suppression of facts because she suppressed material facts about her family’s financial condition which was one of the paramount conditions for the grant of compassionate appointment.
Background
The petitioner’s deceased husband was working as an Administrative Officer at LIC. In 2022, he passed away while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, her son, who was 23 years old, and her daughter, who was about 22 years old, pursuing her MD in Pharmacology.
Thereafter, the petitioner made an application seeking terminal benefits and a compassionate appointment for her major son. However, her request for a compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that her family members were already gainfully employed.
Aggrieved, the petitioner made another representation seeking reconsideration of her claim, but it was rejected.
Hence, the petitioner filed the present application against the impugned orders rejecting her claim.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the application was preferred by the wife of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of her major son, who has neither made any such application to LIC for granting compassionate appointment to him nor has he come before the Court challenging the impugned orders. The Court held that the petitioner had no locus to apply since she had no right to claim a compassionate appointment on behalf of her major son. Thus, the application deserved to be dismissed on the ground of locus itself.
The Court further noted that in the present application, there was no mention of the family’s financial condition, though they received around Rs. 1.85 Crores towards terminal benefits and were getting a monthly pension of about Rs. 45,000. Additionally, the petitioner’s daughter was receiving Rs. 84,000 as a stipend. These facts came to light only when LIC filed their reply. The Court stated that the application deserved to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, as the financial condition of the bereaved family of a deceased employee was one of the paramount considerations for the grant of compassionate appointment, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290.
Considering that the purpose and intention of granting a compassionate appointment were to mitigate the hardships and financial difficulties of the bereaved family, the Court said that the petitioner was required to disclose the true and correct facts before the Court, especially when her application was rejected by LIC on the ground that her family was ‘gainfully employed’. Hence, the Court opined that prima facie, the only aim or intention of the petitioner was to get a compassionate appointment for her son in one way or the other.
Therefore, the Court held that the application deserved to be dismissed on the ground of suppression, as well. In this regard, the Court referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court.
Considering the facts of the case as well as the observations of the Supreme Court, the Court held that, even if the petitioner’s case was considered despite her having no locus, the fact remained that the financial condition of her family was strong, and therefore, it could not be said that it would be difficult for them to maintain themselves.
The Court remarked that the system or policy of compassionate appointment is introduced in most organisations with a pious intention to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family of an employee who passed away in harness. Therefore, such a policy or system could not be permitted to be misused by anyone. Further, the Court remarked that it could have imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner for suppression of material facts but considering that compassionate appointment was a benevolent scheme, and the only intention of the petitioner was to secure an appointment on behalf of her son, it refrained from imposing any costs on the petitioner.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
[Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu v. LIC India, Special Civil Application No. 6349 of 2023, decided on 03-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Vaibhav A Vyas
For the respondent: Nilay H Patel
