Judgment :- Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about 16 years when his father, who was working as Lineman in the third respondent-Electricity Board, died on 02.08.1994. The petitioner's mother approached the third respondent for appointment on compassionate ground and the third respondent by a letter dated 22.7.1997 directed to produce the evidences and the same was produced on 26.7.1997. After attaining majority, when the petitioner approached the third respondent with a fresh representation dated 28.8.2000, the third respondent rejected the same on the ground of time barred by proceedings dated 11.10.2000. Again the petitioner sent a representation on 8.11.2000 to the third respondent. The third respondent rejected the same by proceedings dated 20.11.2000, on the ground that the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved against the said orders, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in letter in No.Ne.PO/Ka.Mi.Pa.Va./Karur/Ni.Pi/U Tha 2/GO Legal heir employment NO.511/2000 dated 20.11.2000 and proceedings No.Ne.PO/Ka.Mi.Pa.Va./Karur/Ni.Pi/U Tha 2/GO Legal heir employment NO.413/2000 dated 11.10.2000 issued by the third respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to award any suitable compassionate appointment to the petitioner based on his educational qualification. 2. No doubt, this Court by the decision dated 25.1.1999 made in W.P.No.14134 of 1991 following the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh reported in 1995 (6) SCC 476 and STATE OF U.P. v. PARASNATH reported in 1998 (2) SCC 412 , rejected the request for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the appointment on compassionate ground is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee and to help the family in distress. 3. From the above facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's mother, namely, the wife of the deceased employee applied within a reasonable time to the third respondent, namely, on 26.7.1997, when her husband died on 2.8.1994, as naturally, a person who lost her husband cannot be expected to seek employment immediately after the death. 4. 3. From the above facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's mother, namely, the wife of the deceased employee applied within a reasonable time to the third respondent, namely, on 26.7.1997, when her husband died on 2.8.1994, as naturally, a person who lost her husband cannot be expected to seek employment immediately after the death. 4. In this regard, I am obliged to refer G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.1993, which reads as follows: Abstract PUBLIC SERVICES - Appointment on compassionate grounds - indigent circumstances of families of deceased Government Servant - Provident Fund and Death cum Retirement Gratuity not to be included - Appointment to one member if another member was already employed in the family of the deceased - clarification - issued. --------------------------------------- READ: 1. G.O.Ms.No.225, Labour and Employment dated 15.2.72. 2. G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment dated 3.2.77. 3. G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment dated 2.5.81. 4. G.O.Ms.No. Govt.Lr.No.18274/N1/82-3 Labour and Employment dated 9.7.82. 5. G.O.Ms.No.73, Employment Service dated 26.10.83. 6. G.O.Ms.No.8, Employment Service dated 7.1.87. 7. G.O.Ms.No.567, Labour and Employment dated 11.04.90. ---- READ ALSO 8. G.O.Ms.23 Labour and Employment dated 11.4.90. ORDER: One of the condition prescribed under the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds formulated in the G.O. first read above is that the family of the deceased Government Servant should in "Indigent Circumstances". Another condition introduced in the G.O. third read above is that if there is already any earning member in the family of the deceased Government Servant who died in harness, the other dependants of the deceased Government Servant will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 2. The Government have re-examined the above mentioned conditions. The expression indigent circumstances has not been precisely defined. It has been left mostly to the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authorities. Therefore the service Associations have represented that this condition be deleted. The family of a deceased Government servant is entitled to provident Fund accumulations. Family benefit death cum retirement gratuity, encashment of leave at credit at the time of death etc. The Government consider that those amounts or the interest earnings that will accrue on depositing these amount, need not be taken into consideration. It is therefore, necessary to ascertain whether the family is having immovable property like houses, lands, etc., the income from which is substantial to sustain the family without any extra help. The Government consider that those amounts or the interest earnings that will accrue on depositing these amount, need not be taken into consideration. It is therefore, necessary to ascertain whether the family is having immovable property like houses, lands, etc., the income from which is substantial to sustain the family without any extra help. The Government therefore direct that the criteria for indigent circumstances is that the family should not own any house or landed properties or if owned the income from which is insufficient to sustain the family. A certificate from the Tahsildar to this effect will have to be produced. 3. In regard to the second condition mentioned in para 1 above, it is considered that if a member of the family is already in employment and supports the family, then the restriction may be applied. When a dependant of the family is employed, the facts to be ascertained are, whether he is regularly employed and is actually supporting the family. If that person was employed even before the death of the Government Servant and was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependants will be considered. 4. However, the restriction that only one of the dependants will be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds will continue. 5. Only the dependants of the deceased Government Servant viz., wife/husband/son/unmarried daughter will be eligible for appointment. If the widow is not educationally qualified/ eligible for appointment, she could be given a job like sweeper. The Government also direct that a married daughter who is deserted by her husband and living with the family of the deceased Government Servant and widowed or divorced daughter living with the family may be considered, if the widow of the deceased Government Servant given her consent in writing. 6. Age restrictions of 30 in the case of sons/unmarried daughters or 40 in the case of widow/widower will continue. 7. All the cases requiring relaxation will be decided by the Committee constituted with reference to para 20 of the Chief Minister's Standing Order No.2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 9.1.92. 8. These orders will be applicable to families of Government Servants who have retired on medical invalidation before attaining the age of 50 years. " 5. 7. All the cases requiring relaxation will be decided by the Committee constituted with reference to para 20 of the Chief Minister's Standing Order No.2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 9.1.92. 8. These orders will be applicable to families of Government Servants who have retired on medical invalidation before attaining the age of 50 years. " 5. As per G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.1993, which is applicable in the case of employment under compassionate ground, assuming the widow is not qualified, she can be considered for the post of last grade servant. It is only because the third respondent refused to consider her case, the petitioner who is the son of the deceased Govindasamy, again applied for employment on 28.08.2000, which was rejected by the impugned proceedings dated 11.10.2000 as time barred. In my considered opinion, the reason for rejection of the application as time barred cannot be attributed against the petitioner, as it is only due to failure on the part of the third respondent to consider the request of the wife of deceased Govindasamy. 6. Hence, I am obliged to quash the impugned proceedings dated 11.10.2000 and 20.11.2000 issued by the third respondent and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for suitable job within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. No costs.