JUDGMENT : TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 08.01.2025 in W.P.No.14995/2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. The appellants/Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LIC’) has been directed to consider the case for compassionate appointment of the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the son of late Shri Rajanna who was working in the office of the appellants/LIC as an Assistant Administrative Officer. The father of the respondent died while in service on 02.10.2020. On 19.10.2020, the son of the respondent made an application with the appellants/LIC seeking his appointment on compassionate grounds. 2.1. The respondent had relied upon the Clause 21 of the LIC of India, Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) which provides for compassionate appointment, to legal heirs of a deceased employee. 2.2. The application came to be rejected by the appellants/LIC stating that it was not possible to consider the appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds as his mother was drawing a pension from the Government. 3. Since the appellants/LIC rejected the application/representation of the respondent, the respondent was constrained to file a petition stating that he is entitled to compassionate appointment and that the receiving pension or family pension would not amount to income or gainful employment. 4. The learned Single Judge, by the Impugned Order has found that the respondent would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was further held that the Supreme Court in an identical situation in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others , (2005) 10 SCC 289 has held that compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that member of family is receiving terminal benefits. 5. The learned Single Judge thus passed the following order: “……. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others , (2005) 10 SCC 289 has held that compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that member of family is receiving terminal benefits. 5. The learned Single Judge thus passed the following order: “……. (iii) The respondent-LIC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of clause 21 of 1993 Instructions and provide employment to the petitioner as "Record Clerk" without reference to the pension/family pension or terminal benefits received by the mother of the petitioner by following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA case (supra). (iv) The respondent-LIC shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/-to the petitioner, within one month from today. (v) Time for compliance, three months from the date of uploading of the order on the High Court website.” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/LIC submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity as all appointments on compassionate grounds are governed by the provision of the Clause 21 of the Scheme. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/LIC further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the condition of such appointment is only available in the case of a financial crisis and not otherwise. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that it is no longer res integra that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied on the basis of pensionary benefits drawn by the family. In addition, it is contended that the respondent was eligible under the Scheme and thus could not be denied the pensionary benefits by the appellants/LIC. 9. It is not disputed by the appellants/LIC that the respondent was eligible under the Scheme, however the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/LIC is on the lack of financial constraints in the family of the respondent, relying on the judgment in the State of West Bengal case. 10. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal case was examining the issue of compassionate appointments; however, the issue that was raised in the case was whether there exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal governing compassionate appointment of municipal employees dying in harness. 10. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal case was examining the issue of compassionate appointments; however, the issue that was raised in the case was whether there exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal governing compassionate appointment of municipal employees dying in harness. The Supreme Court examined the matter and laid down the guidelines for compassionate appointment where a specific Scheme or Rules were not in existence as in the case of the Municipal Employees of West Bengal. The relevant extract is set out below: “22. These appeals primarily concern the question whether there exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal, governing compassionate appointment governing municipal employees dying in harness . In the event that the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, it would be necessary to determine whether a direction issued several years after applications for compassionate appointment are filed, to consider and decide such applications, is in consonance with the object of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment. xxx xxx xxx xxx 32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: 32.1.That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.” [Emphasis Supplied] 11. Undisputably, in the present case, the respondent was qualified for being appointed as a Record Clerk in terms of the Scheme. It is also not disputed that his request was rejected on the ground of his mother is receiving pension and death benefits of his father. 12. The Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma case, has held that it was wholly irrelevant for the Court to consider the family pension or other terminal benefits received. It was held that compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that the member of the family has received certain amounts as pensionary benefits which the family is otherwise entitled to. The following extract is relevant: "4. In pursuance of the said order an officer of LIC appears to have made some enquiry and submitted his report dated 27-4-2002. In the report, he repeats about the family pension which is being paid to the widow of the deceased and the amount which was received as terminal benefits admissible under the Rules. Thereafter, it is mentioned in the report that the elder brother of the complainant is engaged as a painter but he did not disclose his income. Earlier, it is mentioned that he had said that he was engaged in cultivation. The officer inferred that the employment of the elder son of the deceased was being concealed. He also observed that at some places the statement of the elder brother was contradictory. Earlier, it is mentioned that he had said that he was engaged in cultivation. The officer inferred that the employment of the elder son of the deceased was being concealed. He also observed that at some places the statement of the elder brother was contradictory. Ultimately, the officer deputed to make enquiries, comes to the conclusion: "Because of the contradictory nature of statements made by the elder son as also the facts mentioned above the appointment of Govind Prakash Verma on compassionate ground is not maintainable." It is a brief report containing the above conclusions. There is no report in regard to other factors which the learned Single Judge had indicated in his order, upon which also he was required to submit his report. There is specific mention of the case of the appellant in the order saying that the elder brother was engaged in cultivation and was living separately. But the officer who seems to have enquired into the matter, in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, totally omitted to furnish any report on the points, indicated above, as required by the High Court. They seem to be obsessed by the fact that the widow of the deceased is getting family pension and some good amount was paid to them as terminal benefits. The learned Single Judge while passing the final order takes those factors into account, namely, the family pension and other amounts which had been received as terminal benefits of the service and it is said that since the authorities have arrived at certain findings it would not be appropriate to go into those matters, thus he accepted the same and dismissed the petition. xxx xxx xxx 6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. This statement is said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elder brother had stated that he works as a painter. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the inference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might casually be getting work as painter also. Nothing has been indicated in the enquiry report as to where he was employed as a regular painter. The other aspects, on which the officer was required to make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not a whisper is found in the report submitted by the officer. In the above circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the High Court are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refused compassionate appointment to the appellant. The inference of gainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon. The terminal benefits received by the widow and the family pension could not be taken into account. [Emphasis Supplied] 13. The learned Single Judge after examining the Scheme and the judgment in the Govind Prakash Verma case set out above, found that the respondent possessed the qualification as well as he was eligible for appointment under the Scheme. Thus, a direction was passed to consider the case of the respondent for employment as a Record clerk without reference to pension or family pension or terminal benefits received. 14. In any event, there is no other reason assigned in the communication of 21.11.2020 other than “your mother is drawing pension from the Government.” No other ground is set out therein. 14. In any event, there is no other reason assigned in the communication of 21.11.2020 other than “your mother is drawing pension from the Government.” No other ground is set out therein. Given the settled law in this behalf, which is reproduced above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. 15. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the time for the compliance of the Impugned Order is extended by two months from today. 16. All interlocutory applications stand disposed of.