Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Order Date: 16-07-2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Suman Kumar, son of the late Bundela Jha, resident of Kushahar, Sheohar.
- Respondents: Union of India and multiple officers of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) including Managing Director, Zonal Managers, Senior Divisional Manager, and Branch Manager.
- The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a compassionate appointment in LIC on the basis that his father, a fourth‑grade employee of LIC, died in harness on 31‑05‑2010 before retirement (scheduled for 31‑10‑2010).
- Father’s service record: appointed 1982 at LIC Motihari, transferred to Muzaffarpur in 1989, promoted to Record Clerk in 1999, later transferred to Sitamarhi branch.
- At the time of death, petitioner was a minor; after attaining majority, his mother applied for his compassionate appointment on 18‑06‑2012, attaching required documents.
- LIC kept the application pending for nearly 11 years; the petitioner received a rejection communication on 05‑03‑2024 stating that the application was out of time because LIC rules require filing within one year of the employee’s death.
- The mother filed a further representation on 09‑07‑2025; the petitioner’s brothers also submitted no‑objection affidavits, but LIC took no action.
- Counsel for the petitioner argued that compassionate appointment is permissible for an intermediate‑pass qualified candidate and cited a Central Government rule mandating consideration within five years of death.
- Counsel for the Union of India contended that the Union has no role in LIC’s internal matters and was impleaded without substantive interest.
Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the service records and the communications dated 05‑03‑2024, confirming that the application was filed well beyond the one‑year limit prescribed by LIC’s rules.
- The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments:
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, para 6, stating compassionate employment cannot be granted after a reasonable period specified in the rules.
- Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301, para 3, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is intended to relieve immediate hardship at the time of death and cannot be claimed long after the crisis has passed.
- Applying these precedents, the Court held that the petitioner’s claim, filed more than 13 years after the death, does not satisfy the statutory time‑limit and does not constitute a vested right.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety.
- No order directing LIC to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment is issued.
Topics: Compassionate Appointment, Employment Law