1 D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.129/2008 Mrs. Savita Meerchandani Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Date of Order :: May 05, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. J.R. Tantia for the appellant. *** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.5480/1999 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed for appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of premature retirement of husband of the appellant, one of his wards was required to be appointed on compassionate ground in view of Regulation 21 read with Regulation 19(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. It is further contended that the authorities have wrongly treated the premature retirement of husband of the appellant as voluntary retirement and thus failed to apply the scheme as such as referred in the Staff Regulations. From the materials on record, it appears that husband of the appellant applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. His application, however, was accepted by the authorities. The subsequent application filed by the employee for appointment of one of his wards on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Regulations 2 aforesaid was considered and rejected on 17.6.1999 treating the case of voluntary retirement on the part of the employee. From tenor of the application filed on behalf of the employee, it would appear that since he was not keeping good health, he volunteered to retire. His application was accordingly accepted for voluntary retirement and the same was treated to be a case of voluntary retirement and not that of premature retirement. In this background, the order passed by the authorities rejecting the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, cannot be said to be either bad in law or on facts or contrary to the Regulations as referred to above. In a case of voluntary retirement like this, one cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground even in view of some scheme or the regulations framed by it. The scheme so framed would apply in cases of premature retirement or forced retirement, but not in a case of voluntary retirement which was accepted on prayer made on behalf of the employee. For the reasons aforementioned therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-