The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sri Harish B T

THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVANPRAKASH, 100 FEET ROAD, GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGA-577205.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI HARISH B T S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT BUDIHAL VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2-11-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No. 31445/2015, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF WHICH THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶26

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31445/2015 filed by the respondent.

¶27

The respondent's father, late Thippeswamy, who was working as a Peon in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'the LIC' ), was dismissed from service on 12.08.1990. An industrial dispute was raised by him which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru. During the pendency of the said industrial dispute before the Tribunal, the father of the respondent died on 23.10.1999. The legal heirs, including the respondent were brought on

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

record in the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide order dated 01.10.2007, set aside the order of dismissal of the father of the respondent and directed the LIC to pay full back wages along with continuity of service to the legal representatives of late Thippeswamy.

¶31

The aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court came to be challenged by the LIC in W.P.No.1446/2008. This Court, vide order dated 16.02.2009, upheld the award, however, reduced the back wages from 100% to 50%. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge came to be challenged by the LIC in W.A.No.1973/2009. However, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal vide its judgment dated 18.09.2012.

¶32

After dismissal of the writ appeal, the respondent's mother made a request to the LIC for giving compassionate appointment to the respondent herein. Since the said request was not considered by the LIC, the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent filed W.P. No. 31445/2015 seeking direction to

¶36

LIC to consider the case of the respondent on compassionate ground. This Court, vide interim order dated 23.11.2020 passed in the said writ petition was of the view that, there was no delay in seeking compassionate appointment since dismissal of late Thippeswamy, i.e., the father of the respondent, was subject matter of litigation till the year 2012. Therefore, the Court directed the LIC to pass a speaking order on the application of the respondent seeking compassionate appointment.

¶37

In compliance of the said interim direction passed by the learned Single Judge, LIC passed a speaking order on 17.12.2020 rejecting the claim of the respondent herein for compassionate appointment. The said order dated 17.12.2020 has been the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.31445/2015 by way of amendment. The learned

¶38

Single Judge has held that as the order of dismissal of the father of the respondent from service was illegal, and the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

subject matter was pending before this Court up to the year 2012 and the respondent herein had filed the application seeking compassionate appointment within a period of one year from the decision of Division Bench dated 18.09.2012, the application filed by the respondent was well within time. It was observed that the right to claim appointment on compassionate ground would arise, for the first time, only when the decision of termination of services of the father of the respondent came to be finalized by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2012. In view thereof, learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the LIC denying compassionate appointment to the respondent and directed LIC to offer appointment on compassionate ground with a further direction that if there is any age limit for compassionate appointment, the same should be relaxed.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that father of the respondent had died way back in the year

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The very object and purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial support on the death of bread winner to save the family from destitution and to overcome financial difficulty

¶46

faced by the family. When the father of the respondent died way back in the year 1999 and the application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2012, it could not be said that the family was in immediate need of financial help to overcome the financial difficulty or to save the family from destitution. The Supreme Court in the case of CANARA BANK V. AJITHKUMAR G.K. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but a matter of policy to save the family of the bereaved employee from destitution and to overcome the immediate financial difficulty faced by the family from untimely departure of

¶47

the bread winner. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

"10. The policy to appoint a dependant family member of an employee who has died-in-harness or has been medically rendered unfit to perform further job, thereby leaving the family in utter penury, is not of too distant an origin. Going by law reports, the policy seems to have originated during the seventies of the last century and gained momentum in the following decades with this Court laying down guidelines from time to time for grant of compassionate appointment. The rationale for such appointment has been explained in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85 in the following words:

¶52

“8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment."

¶56

11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain wellsettled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law.

¶57

a)…………….. xxxxxxxx……………

¶58

b)……………..xxxxxxxxx………….

¶59

……………….xxxxxxxx………….

¶60

j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar (2009) 13 SCC 112]"

¶61

9 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:41246-DB WA No. 433 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Considering the said judgment, we are of the view that when the father of the respondent died way back in the year 1999 and the application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2012 after the disposal of the writ appeal, this long gap itself would show that the family was not in immediate financial need on the demise

¶65

of the father of the respondent and the family has sustained itself.

¶66

However, considering the fact that only Rs.2,03,000/was paid as 50% backwages to the family and when queried, the learned counsel for LIC, on instructions, submits that this Court may grant further compensation in its discretion.

¶67

Considering the entirety of the facts and

¶68

circumstances of the case, we direct the LIC to pay a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased Thippeswamy, within a period of six weeks from today.

¶69