KAKALI CHAKRABORTY Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is an order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 32943 (W) of 2014. By the said order the writ petitioner's challenge against an order dated 22nd Oct., 2014 passed by the respondent no.2 was set aside since according to the learned Judge the same was neither palpably wrong nor the same had been rendered without adhering to the specific directions given by the Court.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that the writ petitioner's husband, namely, Subrata Chakraborty (hereinafter referred to as Subrata) was appointed as a temporary peon in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LICI) Branch Office No.1 at Siliguri on 30th June, 199 There occasioned a dispute as regards regularisation of the services of Subrata and other similarly situated temporary employees which went up to the Honourable Supreme Court and ultimately by an order dated 18th Jan., 2011 the respondents were directed to consider the claim of regularisation of the temporary Class-IV employees in terms of the scheme framed by LICI which, inter alia, provided that the said temporary employees would be regularised in the event they are successful in the onetime limited examination to be held by LICI. In terms of the said order, Subrata was asked to appear in a written test scheduled on 26th June, 2011. On the scheduled date he attended the examination hall where he fell ill and subsequently expired on 3rd July, 2011 leaving behind the appellant and a fourteen year old daughter. To tide over the extreme financial distress due to the loss of the sole bread earner, the appellant submitted applications for compassionate appointment but in vain and as such she preferred a writ petition being W.P.26389(W) of 2013 which was disposed of by an order dated 28th July, 2014 observing that the appellant's claim requires sympathetic consideration and accordingly directing the respondent no.2 to consider the appellant's representation for compassionate appointment and to pass a reasoned order. Subsequent thereto, the said respondent no.2 passed an order on 22nd Oct., 2014 which was challenged in the writ petition being WP 32943 (W) of 2014.

(3.) Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant at the inception submits that the appellant is not praying for any permanent appointment. Even in the event she is engaged as a temporary staff, the same would apply balm on her wounds caused due the sudden loss of the sole bread earner of the family.