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. 3. 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) 4. 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. 5. . (iv) The relaxation shall be admissible either to the spouse or to one of the children as specified. " (Emphasis is supplied) 4. 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. 5. 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-laws 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. 6. 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-laws house. According to the learned Judge the two sons cannot also be considered to be the members of the family of the deceased. 7. The words gainfully employed contained in the Clause 21 of the Instructions, 1993 were interpreted in different manner by the learned Counsel for both the parties and lengthy submission have been made on this score before this Court. The learned Counsel for both the parties also made submissions in detail on the question whether the two sons could still be said to be the members of the family of the deceased, when it was alleged that the two sons had left the family of the deceased and started living with their in-laws and doing business of their own. 8. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the issues raised before us on the questions of interpretation of the words "gainfully employed" and whether the aforesaid two sons can be treated to be the members of the family of the deceased need not be gone into at this stage, as we find that the learned Judge, while deciding the writ application, in the penultimate paragraph directed the LIC to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent for appointment on compassionate ground on a finding that the two sons were gainfully employed and that they were not the members of the family of the deceased. As noted herein above, since the learned Judge, while disposing of the writ application, directed reconsideration of the application for appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent on compassionate ground, we feel it appropriate to direct that the questions raised before us should be kept open for decision by the authorities concerned. 9. Accordingly, without deciding the aforesaid two questions we dispose of this special appeal by giving liberty to raise these issues/questions, before the concerned authorities who shall arrive at a decision on consideration of the materials already on record and other materials which may be allowed to be placed before them. However, we direct the authorities to decide the application for appointment on compassionate ground by a reasoned and speaking order and in the light of observations made herein above within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner-respondent and other interested parties, if there be any, without being influenced by any of our observations made in this order or by the order of the learned Judge passed in the writ petition. 10. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of. .