ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting the letters sated 27.01.2022 and 15.02.2022. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis on suitable post with all consequential basis with interest @ 18 percent annum.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioner, Shri Rakesh Kumar, died on 6.12.2021 when he was working as Higher Grade Assistant (HGA) with the respondent corporation (LIC). At the time of death, he was survived by his wife Manju Lata, two sons Karan and Sagar, and two daughters Sapna and Surbhi, besides parents of deceased. On 05.01.2022, the mother of petitioner submitted an application to grant compassionate appointment to petitioner in place of her deceased husband Rakesh Kumar. The respondents had declined the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 27.1.2022 on the premise that daughter of late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Surbhi is gainfully employed with the government. The case of petitioner is that Surbhi had been married on 29.12.2021 even before making the application for compassionate appointment and, on date of consideration, Ms. Surbhi was not part of the family of the petitioner to take care of the family of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Tarun Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan (2021 (1) RLW 583), has submitted that the respondents have ignored the relevant facts, representation and settled legal position and rejected the application of petitioner in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the rule and regulation of respondent LIC does not provide for denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that married daughter of deceased is gainfully employed with any other government institution. 4. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of H.P. Vs. Abhishek Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 280 and submitted that the marriage of Ms. Surbhi was already fixed and soon before the marriage, the father of petitioner expired, thereby leaving the family in lurch. He further referred the date of marriage of Surbhi and submitted that the bereaved family had even performed the marriage function of Surbhi in the month of December 2021 and after the marriage, Surbhi was not part of the family. Surbhi was already fixed and soon before the marriage, the father of petitioner expired, thereby leaving the family in lurch. He further referred the date of marriage of Surbhi and submitted that the bereaved family had even performed the marriage function of Surbhi in the month of December 2021 and after the marriage, Surbhi was not part of the family. He also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that on the date of application, not a single family member of petitioner was gainfully employed and there was no support for the family of petitioner from anywhere. He further submitted that the rules have to be given effect to so that they may serve the purpose, and in the instant case, the date of consideration and the provisions of the rules have to be considered by the respondents. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and submitted that the respondents are bound by LIC Recruitment (of Class III and IV Staff) Instruction, 1993 and as per inquiry conducted by respondents, the daughter of deceased Ms. Surbhi, was gainfully employed with effect from 15.07.2020 in the State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. He further referred the provisions for compassionate appointment and submitted that the issue of compassionate appointment has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468; LIC vs. Shri Asha Ramchandara Abedkar and another (1994) 2 SCC 718 ; Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; Directorate of Education Secretary vs. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 3 SCR 342; State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. vs. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165 ; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. vs. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165 ; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of M.P. and others AIR 1999 SC 2894; S. Mohan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1999) 1 LLJ 539 SC; HPSC vs. Harinder Singh (2000) 7 SCC 192; HSEB vs. Krishna Devi (2002) 10 SCC 246; IG (Karmik) vs. Prahlad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162 ; NIT vs. Neeraj Kumar Singh (2007) 2 SCC 481 ; General Manager, State Bank of India vs. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475 ; V. Sivamurthy vs. Union of India (2008) 13 SCC 730 ; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008) 11 SCC 384 ; SAIL vs. Madhusudan Das (2008) 15 SCC 560 ; State of Chhattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009) 13 SCC 600; Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar (2009) 13 SCC 112 ; SBI vs. Rajkumar (2010) 11 SCC 661; Bhavani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 209; Union of India vs. B. Kishore (2011) 13 SCC 131; State of Gujarat vs. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545 ; N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 ; Union of India vs. Amrita Sinha (2021) 20 SCC 695 ; State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR Online 2022 SC 471; Canara Bank vs. Ajit Kumar G.K. (2025) INSC 184 ; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Prakash Chandra Civil Appeal No. 977/2019 (SC); and State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Shashi Kumar Civil Appeal No. 988/2019 (SC). 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by both the counsels for the parties. 8. The short controversy involved in the instant case is that after the death of father of petitioner on 06.12.2021, whether the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment as his sister Ms. Surbhi, who was gainfully employed with State Government, got married to another family on 29.12.2021; and also application was made on 05.01.2022, which is date of consideration. 9. Admittedly, the father of petitioner was working in Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and on 6.12.2021, suddenly he expired. Admittedly, one of the daughter of late Shri Rakesh Kumar was gainfully employed with State Government and on 29.12.2021 her marriage was solemnized and she left the house of petitioner. 9. Admittedly, the father of petitioner was working in Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and on 6.12.2021, suddenly he expired. Admittedly, one of the daughter of late Shri Rakesh Kumar was gainfully employed with State Government and on 29.12.2021 her marriage was solemnized and she left the house of petitioner. The petitioner has filed an application for compassionate appointment through his mother on 05.01.2022. 10. The appointment on the post of Class III and IV staff is governed by Recruitment Instructions, 1993 issued on 25.02.1993, as amended from time to time, thus, the rule of governance of the matter in these instructions. 11. Instruction No. 21 provides for regulation and appointment of any of the relative on compassionate ground and the same is reproduced as under: RELAXATION IN FAVOUR OF NEAR RELATIVES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO DIES WHILE IN SERVICE OR RETIRES AT LEAST 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUPERANNUATION: 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 pre-scribed in Annexure-III hereto. Where an employee is retired prematurely under Regulations 19(3) of the (Staff) Regulations, on health grounds or on being incapacitated for continuous service at least five years before the date of his superannuation, compassionate appointments may be made or one of the relatives mentioned in (ii) below subject to the candidate satisfying all the requirements as prescribed for appointments in the event of death while in service. Such appointment may also be made where an employee is retired prematurely at least five years before the date of his superannuation not for any misconduct but for poor performance. (ii) Such relaxations shall be admissible only in favour of a spouse, son or unmarried daughter of the employee. (iii) The relaxations shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family spouse, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed However, if the widow is already employed elsewhere in Private Sector she will be allowed to take up a job in the Corporation in Class III or Class IV Cadre commensurate with her qualifications if she opts for the same. (iv) The relaxations shall be admissible either to the spouse or to one of the children a specified. (iv) The relaxations shall be admissible either to the spouse or to one of the children a specified. (v) The relaxation 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 or early retirement as specified. Provided that the time limit of one year may be extended in the cases specified below: a) A widow may be allowed upto 5 years from the date of death of her husband to secure the prescribed qualification for appointment to Class III post in the Corporation, b) A major son or unmarried daughter who satisfies the qualification for appointment to Class IV post, may be allowed upto two years from the date or death to secure prescribed qualification for a Class III post if he/she s desires, c) upto three years from the date of death where all the children are minor. (vi) The mode recruitment as prescribed in para 6 supra need not be followed for appointments under Paragraph 21. (vii) All such appointments shall be subject to the existence of a sanctioned vacancy. (viii) There shall be no pre-recruitment written test for the posts of Assistant, Stenographer Typist, Telephone Operator and Record Clerk. However, for appointment to the posts o Stenographers, Typists, and Telephone Operators, the eligible candidates shall quality in the trade test as prescribed. (ix) There shall be no application fee payable. (x) The relative of the employee, selected for the post of Assistant shall not be required to undergo training as prescribed. (xi) Subject to the relaxations as provided herein, the selection of the relative of the employee will be subject to his/her being found suitable for the post in the interview by the select selection committee and in the medical examination. All such appointments shall be at the minimum of the scale applicable to the post. On appointment he/she will be on probation as prescribed under the (Staff) Regulations and confirmation will be subject to the satisfactory work record. (xii) All appointments made subject to the relaxations herein shall be reported to the Zonal Office in a statement at the end of each financial year, who in turn shall send a consolidated statement to the Central Office. (xiii) The application form shall be as prescribed in Annexure IX hereto. (xii) All appointments made subject to the relaxations herein shall be reported to the Zonal Office in a statement at the end of each financial year, who in turn shall send a consolidated statement to the Central Office. (xiii) The application form shall be as prescribed in Annexure IX hereto. 12. One of the condition (iii) clearly provides that relaxation shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family, namely spouse, son, or unmarried daughter, is gainfully employed. The father of petitioner expired on 06.12.2021 and on the said date Ms. Surbhi was gainfully employed with State Government. On 06.12.2021, Ms. Surbhi was part of the family of late Shri Rakesh Kumar as she was an unmarried daughter. The facts claimed by the petitioner indicate that on 29.12.2021 her marriage was solemnized and the application was filed thereafter. 13. In case of Tarun Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the matter in relation to Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 was in question before a coordinate bench of this Court. The facts indicated that the unmarried daughter on the date of death of the Government servant had entered into marriage and within one month thereafter compassionate appointment was claimed. A coordinate bench directed for consideration of the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of HP vs. Abhishek Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 280 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The dependent of Government employee, in absence of any vested right accruing on the death of Government employee, can only demand consideration of his or her application. 15. The judgment in case of N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 was relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar G.K. (supra) , wherein further referred judgment from case of Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu vs. LIC and Ors. 15. The judgment in case of N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 was relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar G.K. (supra) , wherein further referred judgment from case of Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu vs. LIC and Ors. (Special Civil Application No.6349/2023) and certain paragraphs of the judgment have been reproduced: “(1) In 'Union of India v. Amrita Sinha', reported in (2021) 20 SCC 695 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that none can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible; (2) In 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana', reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that the object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible; (3) In ' Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh', reported in (1998) 5 SCC 452 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the case of the dependents, if, gainfully employed cannot be considered for compassionate appointment; (4) In 'General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwar', (2004) 7 SCC 271 , it is held that the retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury and the court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to- do"; (5) While referring to the earlier decisions in the case of 'Union of India v. Shashank Goswami', reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307 , 'Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh', reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350 , 'National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand', reported in (2004) 12 SCC 487 and 'Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja', (2004) 7 SCC 265 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in-harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable; (6) In 'State Bank of India v Somveer Singh', reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778 , it is held that the terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury or not; 16. In case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC (2005) 10 SCC 289 , it was held that: “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. 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. It, however, does not appear that therein the earlier binding precedent of this Court had been taken notice of." 17. In case of Union of India vs. Shashank Goswami and Anr. AIR 2012 SC 2294 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employce. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employce. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 10. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 while dealing with a similar issue i.e. whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be taken into consideration, held as under: "In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities..... to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased ..... and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amount admissible under the Rules." 11. This Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. V. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 , placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. V. Kunti Tiwari & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271 , held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. V. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 , placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. V. Kunti Tiwari & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271 , held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retrial/ terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 12. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.. (2008) 11 SCC 384 this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. 16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside." 18. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for respondents clearly indicate that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is governed by the rules prevailing in LIC. In case of LIC vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (supra), the issue relating to compassionate appointment was considered and it was held that where one member in the family was gainfully employed, no appointment can be made on compassionate grounds. 19. Having considered the material placed on record and the law as referred and relied by learned counsel for respondents, it is apparent that compassionate appointment can not be made in violation of the policy of the Corporation, therefore, the rejection of the candidature of petitioner on ground as mentioned by LIC has to be examined on the basis of instructions issued by the LIC. 20. 20. Considering the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ratio laid down in case of Tarun Kumar Jain (supra), is not applicable in the instant case. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show the relevant provision whereby he can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right despite the facts of the present case, therefore, there is no reason to interfere by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance and stability to the family of a government servant. The scope of such appointment was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank Vs. Ajith Kumar G.K. (supra), wherein the court has directed to Canara Bank to pay a lump sum to family of deceased instead of compassionate appointment. 22. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed along with all pending applications, if any. 23. No order as to costs.