LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus MRS. ASHA RAMCHANDRA AMBEDKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 28-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 
A 
MRS. ASHA RAMCHANDitA AMBEDKAR AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH CJ. ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : Life Insurance Coporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 
1960/Life Insurance Coporation (Recmitment of Class III a11d Class W Staff) 
Instrnctions, 1979: Regulation 4/Clause 2 Sub-clause (iii}-Circulars issued 
th~reunder-Appointment 011 compassionate growzds-Impermissible where 
any member of tlte family is employed-Validity of. 
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226-Writs-Writ of Mandamus-
Jurisdictiott-Exercise of-Appointment on compassionate grounds-Court 
could nlerely direot consideration of claim for appointment-Not 
straightway direct tltat appointment be made. 
D 
The husband of first respondent was employed in the appellant 
Corporation. He expired suddenly. His widow submitted an application 
seeking employment on compassionate grounds and the appellant Cor-
poration rejected the application on the ground that she had crossed the 
upper age limit of 45 years. 
E 
Subsequantly, the second respondent, the son of the deceased made 
various representations seeking employment on compassionate grounds. 
Relying on its Circulars to the effect that where one 'Dember iu the family 
was employed, no appointment could be made on compassionate ground, F 
the Appellant-Corporation rejected his representations. 
The Respondents approached the High Court and it directed the 
appellant Corporation to apeoint the Second respondent on compas· 
sionate grounds. Against this, the appellant-co,.Poration preferred the 
present appeal, contending that it could not be directed to act contrary to G 
the Regulations and Instructions which governed appointment on compas· 
sionate grounds. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Courts should endeavour to find out whether a par· H 
163 
164 
SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS 
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 
A tlcular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed, falls 
within the scope or law. DlsregardCul or law, however hard the case may 
1~ 
be, such appointments should never lbe ordered. (167-GJ 
1.2. In the Instant case, there a1-e Regulations and Instructions. The 
B 
Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope 
of these statutory provisions. Sub- clause (iii) of clause 2 of the Instruc· 
lions ~akes It clear that relaxation could be given only when none of the 
members or the family Is galofully emJ'''· yed. Clause 4 or the Circular dated 
20.1.1987 Interdicts such an appointm1e!lt on compassionate grounds. The 
~ 
appellant.Corporation, being a Stat111tory Corporation, Is bound by the 
c Life Insurance Corporation Act as wdl as the Statutory Regulations and 
Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment 
~rdered. (167.0.H, 168·A] 
1.3. Apart Crom the direction a11 to appointment on compassionate 
grounds being against statutory provisions, such a direction does not take 
D note of the fact that there may be other cases already waiting for appoint· 
ment on compassionate grounds may be harder than that of the second 
respondent. Whatever It may be, the Court should not have directed the 
~ 
appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under man· 
damus cannot be exercised In that fasltlon. It should have merely directed 
E consideration or the claim or the 2nd respondent. To straightway direct 
~
the appointment would only put the appellant•Corporation In piquant 
I 
situation. The disobedience of the said direction would even entail con· 
tempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be war· 
ranted. (169·8; 170·A, B] 
F 
Martin Bum Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR (1966) SC 529 
and Brij Mohan v. M.P.S.R. T. Corpn., AIR (1987) 29, relied on. 
, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 
1994. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order elated 19.10.93 of the Bombay High 
Court in WP. No. 3157 of 1993. 
Barish N. Salve, Mrs. Alpana Poddar and Kailash Vasdev for the 
Appellant 
~· 
H 
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. 
L.l.C. v. MRS.AMBEDKAR [MOHAN,J.] 
165 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
MOHAN, J. Leave granted. 
The short facts leading to this civil appeal are as under : 
Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the B 
Corporation') is the appellant in the civil appeal. It was established under 
the Life Insurance Corpofation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act'). Section 49 of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.