LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA MRS. ASHA RAMCHANDitA AMBEDKAR FEBRUARY 28 & Anr. v. The Corporation of Calcutta

One Shri Ramchandra · Ambekar was employed as higher grade 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 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- 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. 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 : E "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 t .-~ 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. 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 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 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 nominee.11 It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside. 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 : , Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nasik Divisional Office, ,:''Jeevan Prakash11 Golf Cloub Ground, Old Agra Road, Post Box No. 110, Nasik - 422 002. , , L.l.C. v. MRS. AMBEDKAR [MOHAN,J.] 169 Dated : 21st October, '91. Ref.: Shri Nitin Ramchandra Ambekar, Clo Smt. A.R. Ambekar, Jamner Road, Municipal Colony, at & Post-Bhusawal, Distt. Jalgaon. Dear Sir, Re : Your appeal for suitable employment 011 compassionate grounds. 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. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sr. Divisional Manager. " Sci/- E 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 entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, is not the correct approach. F 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 ' > 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. '