KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 16652 of 1994, dated 16-7-1997. The Single Judge has directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in the appellant Corporation. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows. One Sri Abdul Rahiman, S/o Noor Sab Nadaf was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The father of the petitioner was in the service of LIC and he died on 16-4-1993 while in service. After his death, the respondent herein (petitioner in the writ petition) approached the appellant by making an appropriate representation dated 14-6-1993 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground in the appellant organisation. The request of the respondent was rejected by the LIC by an order dated 4-10-1993. The order of the LIC read as follows. "this has reference to your letter dated 21-4-1993. Your representation was forwarded to our zonal office, hyderabad. We regret to inform you that it has not been found possible by them to accede to your request for appointment on compassionate grounds". ( 3 ) THIS order dated 4-10-1993 was challenged before the learned Single judge. Single Judge dealt with two issues. Firstly, it was held that the order passed by the appellant was not a speaking order and therefore, required reconsideration. Secondly, that the order appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Life insurance Corporation of India v Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and another , wherein the Supreme Court has held as under.-"for appropriately dealing with an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, it is incumbent upon the authorities to ascertain by holding an appropriate enquiry as to whether the family comprised of the dependents of the deceased employee, had any income from any source to sustain their livelihood and if it is found that, but for a job being offered to one of the eligible dependents, their family cannot tide over the crisis, compassionate employment should be given to the eligible dependent. Mere employment of one of the sons of the deceased cannot clinch the issue of granting compassionate appointment, if on facts it is found that he had separated from the family of deceased even during his lifetime because in such a situation it cannot be said that he was still a helping hand to the family. . . . While rejecting or accepting the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment the dominant object that is to relieve the family of the distress of the sudden financial crisis or destitution and its immediate remedy have to be kept in the forefront". ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in its above judgment held that a mere employment of one of the sons of the deceased cannot clinch the issue of granting compassionate appointment if on facts it is found that he had separated from the family of the deceased even during his lifetime he could be considered for employment on compassionate grounds. Mr. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the other brother who is employed in the LIC was living separately and therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar's case, supra, applies to the facts of this case and accordingly, the Single judge directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the respondent afresh. The only grievance of Mr. Brahmarayappa was that the learned single Judge has gone into the disputed questions of fact as to whether the other brother who is employed by the LIC was separated or not. These are facts that will have to be determined. ( 5 ) WE are not inclined to interfere with the direction given by the learned Single Judge. However, the appellant is directed to reconsider the whole matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Further, the LIC shall consider the matter strictly in accordance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Asha Ramchandra ambekar's case, supra, and in Smt. Susheela B. Bhakta and Another v karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Another. Needless to say that what the learned Single Judge has stated was with respect to what was asserted by the respondent. This will not preclude the appellant from making an independent and impartial enquiry in the matter and pass orders. Needless to say that what the learned Single Judge has stated was with respect to what was asserted by the respondent. This will not preclude the appellant from making an independent and impartial enquiry in the matter and pass orders. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is disposed off. No costs. --- *** --- .