IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8522 of 2003 REWATI RAMAN ROY SON OF LATE RAM NARESH ROY “PRABHAKAR”, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-P.O. UMAPAT BASANT, P.S. AURAI VIA-RAMPUR HARI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. SENIOR DIVISIOINAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVIS-IONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY, (P& IR), EASTERN ZONAL OFFICE, HINDUSTAN BUILDING, 4TH. CHITRANJAN AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700072. 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, “YOGA KSHEMA” POST BOX 19953, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI- 400021. ------------ 6. 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad for Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the „L.I.C.‟). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2000, Annexure-1 whereunder Senior Divisional Manager of the L.I.C. rejected the request of the petitioner contained in application dated 11.6.1999 for appointment on compassionate ground as violative of Rule-21 of the L.I.C. Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of the impugned order dated 6.1.2000, Annexure-1 would indicate that thereunder the Senior Divisional Manager rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment on 2 compassionate ground with reference to Rule-21 of the aforesaid rules without indicating any reasons. For not providing reasons in support of the order, the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984 and submitted that the administrative authorities while dealing with the administrative matters exercising their discretion are required to give reasons in support of their order. The order passed by the administrative authority is required to be tested on the basis of the reasons recorded thereunder. Perusal of the present impugned order would indicate that the same does not record any reason in support of the order rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 3. Counsel for the L.I.C. on the other hand submitted that the order rejecting the request of the petitioner refers to Rule-21 which inter alia provides one year time limit for making application for appointment on compassionate ground and as the petitioner had submitted his application after 3 one year and seven months of the death of his father, his request for such appointment was rejected with reference to Rule 21 of the rules. He further submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was made on 11.6.1999 which was rejected under order dated 6.1.2000 and the writ petition challenging the same was filed on 21.8.2003. In the circumstances, at this belated stage this Court should not set aside the impugned order dated 6.1.2000 on the ground that the same does not provide for reasons as after more than 13 years of the death of the service holder the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the L.I.C. has relied upon the two judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others and other analogous matter reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138 Paragraph-6 and in the case of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2534 Paragraph 19. 4. Aforesaid submission about the delay in filing the writ petition was not raised by the learned counsel when the writ petition was first 4 entertained by this Court on 26.8.2003 and learned counsel for the L.I.C. prayed for time to file counter affidavit. The plea of belated filing of the writ petition does not require any counter affidavit, it could have been raised on 26.8.2003 the date on which the writ petition was entertained as the impugned order dated 6.1.2000, Annexure-1 already indicated the date of application which was made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as also the date of its rejection and thus the materials which any counsel of ordinary diligence required to raise such submission was already available on the record even without the counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the L.I.C. having failed to raise such submission earlier should not raise such plea at this belated stage after the matter has remained pending in this Court for over seven years as in between also the matter was considered on 24.9.2003 and 25.11.2003 but no such plea was ever raised by the learned counsel for the L.I.C. 6. Having considered the rival submissions as also the impugned order dated 6.1.2000 alongwith Rule-21 of the Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions 1993, I am of the opinion that Senior Divisional Manager who 5 rejected the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment contained in his application dated 11.6.1999 should have indicated in the order dated 6.1.2000 the reasons which persuaded him not to accept the request for compassionate appointment. Such bald statement in the order that the same is rejected in view of Rule-21 does not indicate as to which sub clause of the rule persuaded the Senior Divisional Manager to reject the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In view of the consideration above the impugned order dated 6.1.2000 is set aside with direction to Senior Divisional Manager, Respondent No.1 to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 7. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J )