JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner’s husband was working in the Life insurance Corporation of India (in short ‘the Corporation) as an Assistant Administrative Officer. He unfortunately died while in service on December 15, 1992. Petitioner’s one son, who is married, is working in a Limited Company M/s Nestle India Ltd.,
Moga. Petitioner applied to the Corporation for giving appointment to her other son in the Corporation on compassionate ground in accordance with the instructions of the Corporation on the point. It is not disputed that according to one of the clauses of these instructions for consideration of employment
on compassionate grounds of any member of the family of the deceased employee, the case can only be considered “where none of the members of the family – widow, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed”. The case of the petitioner’s son was not considered for appointment on compassionate ground in the Corporation for the reason that a son of the petitioner is already gainfully employed elsewhere. Therefore, the case of the petitioner’s son does not fall for consideration under the relevant instructions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that simply because another son of the deceased employee is employed somewhere else cannot be a ground to disentitle the other son from seeking employment in the Corporation on the compassionate grounds. According to the learned counsel, unless and until any of the member of the family is employed in the Corporation, the case of a family member of the deceased has to be considered. Alternatively, he argued that the other son of the petitioner is not a member of the family inasmuch as he resides separately holding separate ration card and docs not suppon the family of the deceased. He only looks after his own family. Learned counsel relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in C.W.P.No. 10378 of 1992 decided on May 3, 1993.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that as per the judgment of the apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1995 I LLJ 798), to contend that there is no vested right in a member of the family of the deceased to seek employment on compassionate grounds. In fact under the instructions, the case of each individual has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case keeping in view the financial position of the family alter the bread winner dies in harness. He further submitted
that the instructions of the Corporation have to be strictly construed and since a member of the family of the petitioner is already employed somewhere else, the case of the other son of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the instructions. He further submitted that the expression used in instructions is that the case of only those members of the family -widow, sort or unmarried daughter’ is not gainfully employed. The argument is that irrespective of the fact whether the son is married or not, but if he is employed somewhere else, the case of the other members of the family cannot be considered. He relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Daljit Kaur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr., 1994-(3)108 P.L.R. 268. where these very instructions came up for consideration.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in this writ petition. The argument of the respondents’ counsel is fully supported by the judgment in Daljit Kaur’s case (supra), where specifically the instructions of the Corporation were under consideration and it was held that whether son of the deceased is married or otherwise and is employed somewhere else, the other member of the family cannot seek employment in the Corporation on compassionate grounds, In the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only a passing observation was made and these instructions in question were not considered specifically. In this view of the matter, following the Division bench judgment in Daljit Kaur’s case (supra) we hold that the petitioner’s son has no case for consideration for employment on compassionate grounds.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.