1. Petitioner's father Late Sh. Bodh Raj, an employee of Power Grid Corpora­tion of India Ltd. (a Government of India Undertaking) - respondent no.1 herein, breathed his last on 01-04-2003, at about 1 PM at his residential quarter at Power Grid Colony, Kishanpur. The deceased on aforesaid date during lunch break proceeded to his official residence to have lunch and on reaching his residence developed severe chest pain and was shifted in the Ambulance of the Corporation to District Hospital, Udhampur. The deceased tragically died before getting admit­ted in the Hospital. The petitioner after sad and untimely demise of his father approached the respondents through his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi with an appli­cation for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner insists that he was a B.Com.-II student and eligible for employment in the respondent's Corpora­tion. The respondent no.1 was informed that the daughter of the deceased employee was yet to be married and it was not possible for the widow to arrange marriage of her grown up daughter and make both ends meet in absence of financial support from her son. 2. The petitioner's application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that though as per policy invoked, the respondent Corporation would consider employment to one of the dependent family members of an employee who dies or gets permanently disabled "as a result of accident while on duty", the petitioner was not entitled to such benefit as his father did not die "as a result of accident while on duty". 3. It was, however, admitted that the deceased had gone to his residence to take the lunch break when the deceased got indisposed and later passed away. The respondents reacting to the petitioner's claim that compassionate appointment was given in some cases of permanent disablement/death, plead that in all such cases permanent disablement/death was "as a result of accident while on duty". 4. The petitioner aggrieved with the communication dated 06-08-2003, re­ceived from the respondent's Corporation whereby his request for appointment in the Corporation on compassionate grounds has not been acceded to, has come up with the present petition. 5. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that his father died "as a result of accident while on duty" and that the respondents to decline the petitioner's claim had given an erroneous interpretation to the expression "as a result of accident while on duty". 5. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that his father died "as a result of accident while on duty" and that the respondents to decline the petitioner's claim had given an erroneous interpretation to the expression "as a result of accident while on duty". The petitioner also alleges discrimination inasmuch as in some other cases, the dependents of the employees of the Corporation who died in accident were appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has given details of the cases where dependents were appointed on compassionate grounds due to death/permanent disablement of an employee of the Corporation. The financial hardships to which the petitioner's family has been pushed to, due to sad and untimely death of petitioner's father is also detailed in the writ petition. 6. The respondents in their reply while admitting that as per clause 0.5.4 of the Agreement, employment to one dependent of an employee/workman who is permanently disabled or dies "as a result of accident while on duty" is to be considered insist that no such benefit was extendable to the petitioner as death of Sh. Bodh Raj, father of the petitioner, did not occur "as a result of accident while on duty". The respondents controvert the averments made in the petition as regards hardship and pitiable conditions of the family and have come up with details of the terminal benefits amounting to more than Rs.14/- lac paid to the petitioner's family and a monthly pension of Rs.3421/- sanctioned in their favour. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for parties. 7. The provision for appointment to the dependent of disabled or deceased employee in the event of disablement or death "as a result of accident while on duty" is a remedial or welfare provision and does not admit of any hyper technical interpretation. The provision is to be construed with reference to its context and with due regard to the object sought to be achieved. While interpreting a provision like one under discussion, an interpretation that would produce unjust or inconve­nient result is to be avoided and an interpretation that advances the object of the provision is to be resorted to. In such cases, the authorities saddled with decision making duty are expected to place a liberal and purposive construction on the provision. While interpreting a provision like one under discussion, an interpretation that would produce unjust or inconve­nient result is to be avoided and an interpretation that advances the object of the provision is to be resorted to. In such cases, the authorities saddled with decision making duty are expected to place a liberal and purposive construction on the provision. The words and phrases are to be construed having regard to the subject and the occasion and the object of the rule/norm. The exact meaning of a word or a phrase in a rule/norm is not to be ascertained by reading such words and phrases in isolation but in overall context of the norm/rule. The Supreme Court in Sant Ram v. Rajinder lal, AIR 1978 SC 1601 , observed that a welfare legislation must be interpreted in a Third World perspective favouring the weaker and poor class. What is true about legislation is equally true about a clause in an agreement intended to provide relief and succour to the bereaved family of a deceased employee con­fronted with sudden demise of its only bread earner. In the context of Para 0.5.4 of the Agreement relied upon by the respondents to deny benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, the respondents were required to have regard to "ideological" purpose and "protective intendment" of the provision. The respondents, on the other hand, have taken a technical view of the provision and denied benefit to the petitioner available to him under clause 0.5.4 of the Agreement, it has entered into with its employees. The respondents did not realize that inter­pretation they placed on the provision did not go hand in hand with the purpose and object of the provision. It would be a highly technical view to hold that "as a result of accident while on duty" would not include an accident when an employee proceeds to his official residence, provided by the employer, during the lunch break, to have his lunch. An employee would not cease to be on duty when he goes to a wash room to ease himself or cafeteria/canteen at the work place to have some refreshment or to his residence to have his lunch. An employee would not cease to be on duty when he goes to a wash room to ease himself or cafeteria/canteen at the work place to have some refreshment or to his residence to have his lunch. In case, the interpretation placed on expression "as a result of accident while on duty" is accepted, then in all such cases i.e. where an employee goes to a wash room or cafeteria/canteen at the work place shall be excluded from the benefit otherwise available under Para 0.5.4 of the Agreement. 8. The case set up by the respondents that the petitioner's family has been given terminal benefits after the tragic death of petitioner's father is of no avail and does not help the respondents to wash their hands of their responsibilities under Para 0.5.4 of the Agreement. The respondents at their own choice have made the aforesaid Para independent of the payment of terminal benefits to the family of the diseased employee and the benefit under Para 0.5.4 is in no way contingent upon payment of terminal benefits to the dependents of a permanently disabled/de­ceased employee. So viewed, the respondents have wrongly denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner by placing hyper technical and unwar­ranted interpretation on Para 0.5.4 of the Agreement. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to accord consideration afresh to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in terms of Para 0.5.4, of course, in accordance with rules and regulations. Disposed of along with connected CMPs, if any.