Dismissed

Rinku Elsa Jacob v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Kerala HC26 Nov 2021WP(C)/12514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by mother of deceased Development Officer seeking compassionate appointment for herself. Court dismissed petition holding applicant ineligible as she is married and her mother is gainfully employed under LIC Instructions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside of Ext.P5 order and direction to decide application in conformity with Instructions was refused.

Rinku Elsa Jacob Vs Life Insurance… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(C).12514/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 12514 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

RINKU ELSA JACOB, AGED 31 YEARS D/O LATE JACOB VARGHESE, RINKU DALE, THATTARAMBALAM P.O, KANDIYOOR, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690103.

¶10

BY ADVS. GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) A.R.DILEEP P.J.JOE PAUL MANU SRINATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA GROUND FLOOR EAST WING, JB TEMKAR MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MAHARASHTRA-400021.

¶13

2 SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, POST BOX NO.69, NAGAMOPADAM, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM P.O, 686001.

¶14

3 MANAGER (P & IR), LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, POST BOX NO.69, NAGAMOPADAM, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM P.O, 686001.

¶15

BY ADV S.EASWARAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).12514/2021

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the daughter of one Jacob Varghese who was the Development Officer of the first respondent/Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mavelikkara Branch. While in service, he died on 06.02.2018. Ext.P3 application dated 04.05.2018 seeking compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner, who is his married daughter. It seems that the above application was rejected on the ground that, she was married. Thereafter, on 24.12.2020, petitioner again filed another representation as Ext.P4, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The cause of action for the second application was referred to as the decision of Karnataka High Court which had passed an order holding that, a married girl was entitled for the job on compassionate grounds. The above application was rejected by Ext.P5 order dated 06.02.2021 on the premise that, her mother was gainfully employed as Headmistress in a school. Hence, she was not eligible to claim compassionate employment. Challenging Ext.P5, writ petitioner has approached this Court. The relief sought in the Writ Petition is to set aside Ext.P5 and to direct LIC to decide Ext.P4 application in strict conformity with the Life Insurance Corporation Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 [referred as 'Instructions' hereinafter].

¶21

W.P(C).12514/2021

¶22

¶23

Challenging Ext.P5, learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Manu Srinath invited my attention to the relevant portion of clause 21 of the Instructions. Learned counsel specifically pointed out that the heading given to Clause 21 of the Instructions is “Relaxation in favour of near relatives of an employee who dies while in service or retires atleast five years prior to the date of superannuation”. Subclause (ii) provides that, 'such relaxations shall be admissible only in favour of a spouse, son or unmarried daughter of the employee'. Clause (iii) provides that, 'the relaxations shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family, spouse, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed'. Relying on this, learned counsel contended that, when these two clauses are read in conjunction with the heading, Clause 21 refers to the relaxations. Petitioner is not seeking any relaxation in relation to the educational qualification or upper age limit as provided in the opening clause or sub-clause of Clause 21. Clause 21(i) provides that, there shall be relaxation in upper age limits and educational qualifications in favour of near relatives as defined in clause (ii) of an employee who dies while in service as prescribed in Annexure-III thereto. The very attractive argument advanced by the learned counsel appears to be impressive at the first blush. Precise contention was that, since clause (v) provides for relaxation in relation to age limit and educational qualification, petitioner who does not seek relaxation is entitled to the benefit of

¶24

W.P(C).12514/2021

¶25

¶26

compassionate appointment ignoring the relaxation of age and educational qualification, which she is not insisting for.

¶27

However, answering this, Adv.S.Easwaran learned Standing Counsel for the LIC contended that, this contention has got inherent drawbacks. Firstly, though the word used is relaxation, virtually, various provisions in Clause 21 enumerates the various conditions that are to be satisfied to claim compassionate appointment. The moment petitioner contends that, he is not asking for relaxation, he cannot bank on Clause 21 or any sub-clause under Clause 21. If that be so, there was no other provision which enable the petitioner to claim her right of compassionate appointment.

¶28

Definitely, the right to claim compassionate appointment has to flow from a definite right confirmed by the Statute or by Rules/Regulations. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar and Another [{1994)2 SCC

¶29

718] wherein, at paragraph 17, Supreme Court referred to the factual situation and held that, direction given to appoint on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, and does not take note of the basic fact that, there were already other persons waiting for appointment. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank and Others v. Promila and Another

¶30

W.P(C).12514/2021

¶31

¶32

[(2020)2 SCC 729] . In that, referring to the basic principles of compassionate appointment, Supreme Court held that, it was intended to provide a succour at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. It was observed that, if these matters are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation, which they were faced with.

¶33

Learned contended that, on merits also, petitioner being a married women is not entitled to the benefit under Clause 21. Since the mother of the petitioner was gainfully employed, it was yet another disqualification under Clause (iii). In the light of above, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not legally sustainable.

¶34

It is to be noted that, though petitioner has a specific contention that, she was not informed about the rejection of Ext.P3 application, in Ext.P5 order, she has admitted that the rejection of the application was communicated to her, though not in writing. However, once she was informed about the rejection of the application, that itself is the cause of action to her to challenge the rejection of application. Subsequent judgment of a High Court cannot constitute a cause of action, that too, after a long delay of two years. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in W.P(C).No.17788 of 2018, which held that a married

¶35

W.P(C).12514/2021

¶36

¶37

women is also entitled to claim compassionate appointment, even assuming that, it applies to the facts of this case, still on other grounds, her application is not sustainable. Having considered this, I find no merit in the Writ Petition.

¶38

Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

Sbna/

W.P(C).12514/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12514/2021

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEATH
	DATED 16.02.2018 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF
	BIRTHS, DEATH AND MARRIAGE (COMMON), MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN BACHELOR OF DENTAL SURGERY (BDS), FACULTY OF DENTISTRY, MEENAKSHI UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.05.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE NOC ISSUED BY THE SISTER OF PETITIONER DATED 04.05.2018.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.12.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Rinku Elsa Jacob v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Elsa Jacob v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Salimkumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Anila Ajith Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Satheesh V.P. Vs Union of India

Rohith Menon E Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Thomas Vs Union of India

P.M. Sugathan, Vs State of Kerala