Holding

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a compassionate appointment when the corporation's regulations expressly forbid such an appointment.

Summary

The widowed wife of a deceased LIC employee and her son applied for employment on compassionate grounds after the employee's death. The corporation rejected the wife's claim due to her exceeding the age limit and rejected the son's claim citing a circular that barred compassionate appointments when any family member was already employed. The Bombay High Court directed the corporation to appoint the son, but the corporation appealed. The Supreme Court held that the corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1960, the 1979 Recruitment Instructions and the 1987 circular, all of which expressly prohibit compassionate appointments if any family member is gainfully employed. Consequently, a court cannot issue a mandamus directing an illegal appointment; the High Court's order was ultra vires. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the directive to appoint the son.

Issues considered

Whether a court can direct a statutory corporation to make a compassionate appointment contrary to its own regulations and circulars.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel an act that is prohibited by statutory regulations.
Interpretation of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and the 1979 Recruitment Instructions, particularly sub‑clause (iii) of Clause 2 and Circular No. 2D/636/ASP/87, Clause 4.

Legislation cited

Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956s. 49
Motor Vehicles Acts. 42, s. 59

Subjects

compassionate appointmentstatutory corporationmandamusadministrative lawemployment regulationsLife Insurance Corporationcourt jurisdiction

Judgment

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
be, such appointments should never lbe ordered. (167-GJ 1~

1.2. In the Instant case, there a1-e Regulations and Instructions. The
Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope
B 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
consideration or the claim or the 2nd respondent. To straightway direct ~
E I
the appointment would only put the appellant•Corporation In piquant
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 said Act empowers the Corporation to make
regulations with prior approval of the Central Government. In eirercise of
these powers, the Corporation has framed the Life Insurance Corporati(ji C
of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing for terms and conditions of
service of the staff of the Corporation. Regulation 4 of the said Regulations
empowers the Chairman of the Coporation to issue such instructions or
directions as may be necessary to give effect and carry out instructions of
the Corporation in order to secure effective control over the staff employed
by the Corporation. The Chairman of the Corporation with the approval D
of the Board on 27.11.1979 issued the Life Insurance Corporation Recruit-
ment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instructions, 1979. These instructions
also contain provisions for the appointment of staff on compassionate
ground upon demise of a member of the staff of the Corporati.on while in
service. These instructions are statutory in character. Therefore, they have E
the force of law.
'.··
Clause 2, sub-clause (iii) of these Instructions reads, inter a/ia, as
under:

"2. Relaxation in favour of near relatives of an employee who dies F
while in service :-

(i) .......

(ii) .......
G
(iii) The relaxation shall be admissible only where none of the
members of the family-widow, son or unmarried daughter is gain-
fully employed."

A Circular No. 2D/6'36/ASP/87 was issued by the Central Office of
the Corporation on 20.1.1987. Clause 4 of the amended Circular is as H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 2 S.C.R.

A under:
"4 Where any member of the family is employed, no appointment
may be made on compassionate grounds."

One Shri Ramchandra · Ambekar was employed as higher grade
B Assistant in the Sanda Branch under the Nasik Divisional Officer of the
appellant Corporation. He expired suddmly on 11.8.1987. Upon his demise,
the Ist respondent, his widow submitted an appiication seeking e~ploy
ment on compassionate grounds with the appellant Corporation. On
12.12.1987, the Corporation rejected the abovesaid request on the ground
C that she had exceeded the upper age limit of 45 years. Therefore, her
request could not be complied with.

Subsequent thereto, the 2nd respondent made various repre-
sentations on 8.5.1989, 1.7.1989, 18.6.1990 and 21.6.1991 seeking amploy-
ment on compassionate grounds. By letter dated 21.10.1991, the appellant
D Corporation relying on Circulars dated 6.10.1987 and 21.1.1987 rejected the
request. Thereupon Writ Petition No. 3157 of 1993 came to be filed by 2nd
respondent to direct the appellant Corporation to appoint him on compas-
sionate grounds. By the impugned judgment dated 19.10.1993 of the High
Court, the appellant Corporation was directed to appoint 2nd respondent
E on compassionate grounds within four weeks of the date of the order.
Hence, the present appeal.

Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Corpora-
tion would urge that the appellant Corporation cannot be directed to act
contrary to the Regulations and Instructions which govern appointment on
F compassionate grounds. These Regulations which have been framed with
good intent and purpose cannot be t:· passed. The Regulations do not
contemplate appointment on compassionate grounds when oue of the
members of the deceased family is gainfully employed.

G Where the Corporation has acted bona fide and declined to appoint
the 2nd respondent, that exercise of power cannot be interfered with.
Shortly put, the Corporation cannot be directed by means of a mandamus
to do something which is per se illegal.

Learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the High Court
H has correctly appreciated the matter and. held that appointment on com-
L.I.C. v. MRS.AMBEDKAR [MOHAN,J.] 167

pasionate ground is need based. As far as Ist respondent is concerned, she A
withdrew her application because she was age barred. Where the High
Court took into consideration the 2nd respondent who was in the prime of
his life and youth and directed appointment on compasionate grounds
which is in accord with the Rules of the Government, no exception could
be taken to the judgment.
B
Qf late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointll)ent
on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we
would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the
Administrative Tribunals cannot c0nfer benediction impelled by sym-
p!lthatic consideration. ;.;-u ~-iabt Shak>peare said in Merchant of Venice: C
"The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth, as the gentle rain
from heaven Upon the place beneath it is twice bless'd; It blesseth
him that gives, and him that takes;."

The words wiu not apply to all situations. Yeilding to instinct will D
tend to ignore the cold logic of law: It should be remembered "law is the
embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law is a principle as old
as the bills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however,
inconvenient it may be.
E
At this juncture we may usefully refer to Mamn Bum Ltd. v. The
Corporation of Calcutta, AIR(1966)SC 529. At page 535 of the Report the
following observations are found :
t
"A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A
Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it F
considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of
course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not.'

The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case
in which sympathatic considerations are to be weighed falls within the G
scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, it should
never be done. In the very case, itself, there are Ragulations and Instruc-
.-~ tions which we have extracted above. The Court below has not even
examined whether a case falls within the scope .of these statutory
provisions. Clause 2 of sub-clause (iii) of Instructions makes it clear that
relaxation could be given only when none of the members of the family is H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A gainfully employed. Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.1.1987 interdicts such
an appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant Corporation
being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation
Act as well as the Sratutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be
put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered.

B Further it is well-settled in law that no mandamus will be issued
directing to do a thing forbi\lden by law. In Brij Mohan v. M.P.S.R. T.
Cotpn., AIR(1987)SC 29, it is stated as under :

''The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in particular Ss. 42
c and 59 clearly debar all holders of permits including the State Road
Transport Corporation from indulging in unauthorised trafficking
in permits. Therefore, the agreement entered into by the petitioner,
unemployed graduate, with the State Road Transport Corporation
to ply his us as nominee of the Corporation on the route in respect
of which the permit was issued in favour of the Corporation foe a
D
period of five years, wa; clearly contrary to the Act and cannot,
therefore, be enforced. In the circumstances, the petitioner would
not be entitled to the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus
to the Corporation to allow him to operate his motor vehicle as a
stage carriage under the permit obtained by the Corporation as its
E nominee.11

It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the
statutory provisions cannot be put aside.

F In this very case, on the demise of Ramchandra Ambedkar, the first ,
respondent staked her claim but she was age barred. Therefore, the 2nd
respondent when he put forth his entitlement, the appellant Corporation
passed an order dated 21.10.1991 in answer to the 2nd respondent request
for appointment on compassionate grounds as follows :

G Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Nasik Divisional Office,
,:''Jeevan Prakash11 , ,
Golf Cloub Ground,
Old Agra Road, Post Box No. 110,
H Nasik - 422 002.
L.l.C. v. MRS. AMBEDKAR [MOHAN,J.] 169

Dated : 21st October, '91. A
Ref.:

Shri Nitin Ramchandra Ambekar,
Clo Smt. A.R. Ambekar,
Jamner Road, Municipal Colony, B
at & Post-Bhusawal, Distt. Jalgaon.

Dear Sir,

Re : Your appeal for suitable employment 011 compassionate
grounds. C
We had received your appeal dated 21.6.1991. We had sub-
mittad it to the Competent Authority and we are sorry to inform
you that the Competent Authority has shown inability to offer any
employment to you.
D
Thanking you,
'
Yours faithfully,

Sci/- E
Sr. Divisional Manager."

To say, as a court below ha& done, that the 2nd respondent is at the
prime of his life and youth and is aged about 21 years and the dues that
> are paid by the Life Insurance Corporation to the family are the lawful
dues that are earned by the deceased. Therefore, on facts, he would be F
entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, is not the correct
approach.

We are totally unable to support this line of reasoning. For aught one
knows, there may be other cases waiting already' for appointment on G
compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the 2nd
respondent

Thus, apart from the directiops as to appointment on compassionate
grounds being against statutory provisions, such directions does not take
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have pirectccl
the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under man-
damus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed
consideration of the claim of the 2nd respondent. To straightway direct the
appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation.
B The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the
fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground
which renders the impugned judgment dated 19.10.1993 unsupportable:
For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals allowed.

'