Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sagar Samaria S/O Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India … on 4 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:5473]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/2022
Sagar Samaria S/o Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of 1301, Khatik Mohalla, Subash Ganj,
Nasirabad, Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Through Its Senior
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Ajmer Division,
Jeevan Prakash, Ranade Marg, Alwar Gate Ajmer 305029
2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria
Mr. Arihant Samdaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Sharma
Ms. Simran Jain
Ms. Nidhi Mathur
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
04/02/2026
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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (2 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (3 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (4 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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. 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (5 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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. 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:
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (6 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (7 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
(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(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (8 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]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.
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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (9 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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.
(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;
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (10 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
(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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (11 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (12 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]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(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (13 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]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(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (14 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]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. 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (15 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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. 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5473] (16 of 16) [CW-5135/2022]
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.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA /117
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:32:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 10:37:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)