COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 342/2003 Km. Poonam …….Petitioner Versus Chairman/Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation & Others …….Respondents Sri S.K. Posti, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri M.C. Kandpal, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondents. 5th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2.11.2001, which is contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was rejected. 2. Petitioner’s father late Sri R.C. Lal was working as Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, Corporation) at its Regional Office, Kanpur. He died in harness on 16.7.2001. After the death of her father, petitioner applied for her compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules of the Corporation vide her application dated 27.8.2001. The application of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules of the Corporation was rejected holding her not to be eligible. 2 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied on Rule 21(III) of the L.I.C. Recruitment (of Class III and IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 and vehemently argued that benefit of Dying in Harness Rules can be provided when no other member of the family is engaged in any profitable business, whereas one brother of the petitioner is employed as Development Officer in the Corporation and other brother is engaged in some private business. Therefore, in view of the instructions contained in Rule 21(III), petitioner is not entitled to be appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules. 4. I have perused the Rule 21 (III). Undisputedly, Petitioner was living with her father and she is a Graduate. She has two brothers. Her father was living separately and her both brothers were also living separately. Both are major and separate one from the family of the deceased. Therefore, Rule 21(III) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case for the reason that the brother, who was in service during the period his father was in service, has been living as a separate family. He does not fall within the definition of the family. 5. For the reasons recorded above, I direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and appoint her on any suitable post under the Dying in Harness Rules of the Corporation. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh