IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4203 of 2011-E Date of Decision : 17.11.2011. Hem Lata Attri …Petitioner. Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a) That by way of issuing the writ of certiorari annexure P-6 rejection letter issued by the respondent may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent may also be directed to produce the all record pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner in support of the petitioner’s averments. b) That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to give him appointment on compassionate ground which he deserves due to his father untimely and sad demise when he was serving with the department. 2 c) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the present case. d) Allow costs of the petition in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” 2. Annexure P-6, the impugned order is the letter of rejection of petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate basis. Rejection is on the ground that the application was filed after the prescribed period. 3. It is not in dispute that respondents have issued LIC of India Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instructions, 1993, for recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV employees. Instruction No.21, no doubt stipulates that, application for appointment on compassionate basis can be made by a major son or an unmarried daughter who satisfies the qualification for appointment of Class-IV post within a period of one year, but however, there is an overriding general clause (last clause) empowering the Chairman of the Corporation to grant relaxation in a given case. 4. In the instant case, respondents themselves had asked the petitioner to furnish particulars beyond the prescribed period of limitation of one year. This is evident from letter dated 25th August, 2010 (Annexure P-3) and letter dated 30th September, 2010 (Annexure P-4). The present petitioner was already major and eligible at the time of death of the deceased employee. 3 Respondents were fully aware of the rules and perhaps it is for this reason that Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 were issued as it was open for the Chairman of the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate basis, in accordance with the policy, by relaxing the prescribed period of limitation. 5. As such, present petition is allowed. Annexure P-6 is quashed with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate basis, in accordance with the policy. The decision shall positively be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Before taking decision adequate opportunity of hearing/representation shall be afforded to the petitioner. Decision containing reasons shall also be communicated to her. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of as also the pending application, if any. Copy dasti. 17th November, 2011 (Sanjay Karol), k.sharma Judge