Kiran Raj

The Gujarat High Court, Single Bench Justice Nirzar S. Desai, has dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of a request for compassionate appointment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The petitioner, the wife of a deceased LIC employee, had sought employment for her son on compassionate grounds, but the court held that she lacked the legal standing to file such a petition on behalf of her adult son. The court also observed that the financial condition of the family did not warrant relief under the compassionate appointment scheme.

The petitioner’s husband, Vitthalbhai Jambu, was employed as an Administrative Officer with LIC and passed away while in service on August 17, 2022. Following his demise, the petitioner applied on September 8, 2022, seeking terminal benefits and a compassionate appointment for her son, Parth, who was a major at the time.

Also Read: When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under S.406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

The application was rejected by LIC on December 1, 2022, on the ground that the family members of the deceased employee were already gainfully employed. A subsequent representation by the petitioner, requesting reconsideration, was also denied on December 28, 2022. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court, challenging LIC’s rejection and seeking a direction to appoint her son under the compassionate employment scheme.

The High Court examined whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the petition and whether the family’s financial condition justified relief under the scheme. The court stated:

"The present petitioner has no locus to file the petition, since the petitioner has no right to claim compassionate appointment on behalf of her son, who is major."

The court noted that the son himself had never approached LIC with an application for employment, nor had he challenged the rejection orders. It further observed:

"The petitioner, being a mother, was merely canvassing the case of her son. However, the ultimate beneficiary, being a major, neither applied for compassionate appointment nor approached this Court. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of locus, itself."

On the issue of financial hardship, the court noted that the petitioner’s family had received approximately ₹1.85 crore in terminal benefits, along with a family pension of ₹47,085 per month. Additionally, the petitioner’s daughter, a medical student, was receiving a stipend of ₹84,000 per month. The court recorded:

"Considering that the financial condition of the bereaved family is a key factor in granting compassionate appointment, the petition lacks merit. The petitioner has not disclosed in her application or petition that the family has received substantial financial benefits, which clearly indicate that the family is not in penury."

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Amrita Sinha, which held that financial benefits received by the family of a deceased employee should be taken into account while evaluating applications for compassionate employment. The judgment cited:

"Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a scheme intended to provide immediate relief to a family in financial distress upon the death of an employee. If the family has received adequate financial support, such an appointment is not justified."

Also Read: "Subsequent E-Way Bill Cannot Nullify Tax Liability": Allahabad High Court Upholds Penalty on Misclassified Goods Transported Without Compliance

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding LIC’s decision to deny the request for compassionate appointment. The court noted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding the family’s financial status and stated:

"This Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the only aim or intention on the part of the petitioner was to get compassionate appointment for her son by one way or the other, without disclosing the true and correct financial condition of her family."

While the court found grounds to impose costs on the petitioner for non-disclosure, it refrained from doing so, considering the nature of the compassionate appointment scheme. The judgment concluded:

"The system or policy of compassionate appointment is introduced with a pious intention to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family of an employee. It cannot be permitted to be misused. This petition is accordingly dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas

• For the Respondents: Mr. Nilay H. Patel

Case Title: Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu v. LIC India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:13817
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 6349 of 2023
Bench: Justice Nirzar S. Desai

[Read/Download order]