ORDER Leave granted. 2. On or about 27.11.1979 the Life Insurance Corporation of India framed the LIC Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1979. Recruitment of staff in LIC is governed by the said Instructions. Instruction 22 provides for relaxations in favour of near relatives of an employee who dies while in service. Class (v) of the said instructions reads thus : "(v) The relaxations shall be admissible only if a request is received from the relative who satisfies the conditions of minimum educational qualifications, age, etc., as prescribed within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee." 3. The appellant's husband died in the year 1981. She made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, inter alia, stating : "...I submit that I have appeared for the Matriculation Examination held in April, 1982 from Andhra University and am awaiting the positive result. At this critical juncture your shower of grace will only help subsist my family and I most humbly beg to provide me with a suitable job in your esteemed organisation for which act of benevolence, I will ever remain grateful, Sir...." The said application was rejected on 30.8.1985. A further representation was made by the appellant on 21.11.1985 which was also rejected on 1.5.1986. The principal ground on which the said application was rejected was that she was not qualified for being recruited in Class-III post. A writ petition was filed by the appellant herein on or about 14.7.1993. In the counter- affidavit, the respondents, inter alia, contended : ".... However, such a qualification is not necessary for being considered to a Class IV post in the category of Sweeper/Cleaner. But, all such appointments can be made subject to existence of vacancies. I submit that as there were no vacancies in the cadre of Sweeper/Cleaner, the 1st Petitioner was not offered appointment. Also the 1st Petition had not stated that she was willing to serve in Class IV cadre." 4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court on the premise that such a plea on the part of the respondent had been taken for the first time that there existed no vacancy in Class-IV post, directed the respondent-Corporation to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the appellant No. 1 for wrongfully refusing to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. 80,000/- to the appellant No. 1 for wrongfully refusing to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. An intra Court appeal the reagainst was preferred and by the impugned judgment the said appeal had been allowed. 6. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment as the appellant No. 1 never claimed appointment in a Class-III post. According to the learned counsel, she was ready and willing to work even in a Class-IV post. 7. We have noticed hereinbefore that the stand of the respondent No. 1 had all along been that the appellant was not having requisite qualification to be appointed in the Class-III post and furthermore no vacancy existed in Class-IV post and in any event she had not shown her readiness and willingness to work as a Cleaner/Sweeper. 8. Apart from the fact that the learned Single Judge ignored the relevant fact by failing to take notice of the aforesaid contentions of the respondents, in our opinion, in the absence of any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and/or payment of ex gratia amount, learned Single Judge could not have issued a direction in regard to payment of compensation in favour of the appellant. 9. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was correct in concluding that the appellant was not entitled to payment of any compensation. Moreover, as the appellant's application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected as far back on 30.8.1985, she should have filed a writ petition thereagainst within a reasonable time therefrom. As noticed hereinbefore she filed a writ petition only in the year 1993. In that view of the matter too, we are of the view that the writ petition should not have been entertained. We do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.