Judgment :- (Prayer: The application in O.A. No. 2503/2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to call for the records of the respondent relating to Govt.Lr.No. 36789/G/2000, Health and Family Welfare Dept., dated 2.12.2002, quash the same and issue consequential directions to the respondent to appoint the applicant/petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post, commensurate with his educational qualifications.) Initially, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 2503/2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the Government dated 2.12.2002 issued in Govt. Lr. No. 36789/G/2000, Health and Family Welfare Department and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 36701 of 2005. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s father was a leprosy patient and he got cured of the disease. The petitioner’s mother was also a leprosy patient. The petitioner’s father died on 29.10.1980 while working as a Higher Grade Teacher in the Special School attached to Government Leprosy Sanatorium, Yethapur, Salem District. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was 10 years old . The petitioner, who was also a leprosy patient by birth was hospitalized for a long time. Though the mother was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, Government Leprosy Sanatorium School, Yethapur, she did not care to look after the petitioner, who was hospitalized and the petitioner had incurred huge expenses for his treatment by raising loans from private sources. The petitioner’s mother retired from service on 31.10.1996. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was undergoing treatment from 1987 to 1991 in the Government Leprosy Sanatorium, Yethapur and again in 1996 and he was completely cured and in March, 1997, a certificate was issued that no gross deformity appeared except mild deformity and that the same would not affect him from performing Government jobs. In the year 1998, the petitioner submitted an application dated 4.3.1998 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. But, the same was rejected by the letter of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services dated 5.7.99 on the ground that since the mother of the petitioner was in Government Service at the time of his father’s death, he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. But, the same was rejected by the letter of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services dated 5.7.99 on the ground that since the mother of the petitioner was in Government Service at the time of his father’s death, he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. After getting cured, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.6.2001 seeking appointment under the scheme of appointment for cured leprosy patients. But, the same was also rejected by Government Letter dated 6.3.2002 informing the petitioner that by G.O.Ms. No.296 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 17.6.97, the said scheme was abolished. Subsequent to this, again, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 10.4.2002 in this regard and the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 2.12.2002. Challenging the same, the above W.P./O.A. has been filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected on the ground that his mother was in Government service at the time of his father’s death. But, as per G.O.Ms. No. 155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.93, even if one member of the concerned family is in employment, the other member is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, provided the earning member does not lend any support to the family. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner’s mother was working as a Secondary Grade Assistant, she did not lend any support to the petitioner and the petitioner was left in the lurch. Hence, as per the above said G.O., according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and this aspect has not been considered by the Government. That apart, according to the learned counsel, the object of the said Government order is to help the legal heirs of the Government Servants, who died while in service. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a cured leprosy patient and he is not able to get a job in spite of the fact that it has been medically declared that he is fit for appointment in Government Service. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Department would submit that by G.O.Ms. No. 296 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 17.6.97, the scheme of appointment for cured leprosy patients has been abolished. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Department would submit that by G.O.Ms. No. 296 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 17.6.97, the scheme of appointment for cured leprosy patients has been abolished. That apart, at the time of death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner was 10 years old and on the date of filing the original application , as per the averment in the application itself, the petitioner was 34 years old. The period of limitation prescribed for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is 3 years whereas the above application has been filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 24 years. As such, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father died in the year 1980 when the petitioner was 10 years old. At that time, the petitioner’s mother was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher and as per the legal heir ship certificate, for the petitioner’s parents, he is the only child. That apart, as per G.O. Ms.No. 155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.93, even if one member of the concerned family is in employment, the other member is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds provided the earning member is not lending any support to the family. As far as the petitioner is concerned, except an averment to the effect that the mother did not take care of him no other proof to this effect has been filed and making an averment in the application alone is not sufficient to prove the fact that the earning member is not lending any support to the family. That apart, the petitioner’s mother is also a leprosy patient and the petitioner is the only child for his parents and he has studied upto SSLC. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the mother did not take care of the petitioner, he is eligible for the benefit given by the above said Government Order cannot be accepted. Besides, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner’s father died as early as 1980 and after a lapse of nearly 24 years, the original application has been filed seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Besides, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner’s father died as early as 1980 and after a lapse of nearly 24 years, the original application has been filed seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. As far as compassionate ground appointment is concerned, the limitation period prescribed is 3 years. But, in this case, the petitioner had made his first application in this regard in the year 1998, i.e., after a lapse of nearly 18 years. As such, I am of the opinion that as per the Government Order applicable to compassionate ground appointment and for the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. However, there is no dispute that the petitioner’s parents were leprosy patients and the petitioner was also a leprosy patient. Now, he got cured of the disease. As such, it is not easy for him to get job anywhere as a normal person. Unless this aspect is borne in mind while dealing with cases of cured leprosy patients, there will be no meaning for the schemes introduced by the Government for the welfare of the cured leprosy patients and unless a specific provision is made to provide employment to such cured leprosy patients, their survival will become a question mark. Even the right to life enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India means something more than survival or animal existence (State of Maharashtra V. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803 (paras 1,20). It would include the right to live with human dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin V. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746 (para 3)). It would include all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living (Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ). That which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to live (Olga Tellis V. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (paras 33-34)). Hence, public employment cannot be taken away by any procedure which is not reasonable, fair and just(Olga Tellis V. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (paras 33-34). The right to work, though, not a fundamental right, is a means to development and source to earn livelihood for a workman, lower class, middle-class and poor people. Hence, public employment cannot be taken away by any procedure which is not reasonable, fair and just(Olga Tellis V. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (paras 33-34). The right to work, though, not a fundamental right, is a means to development and source to earn livelihood for a workman, lower class, middle-class and poor people. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter (Chameli Singh V. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 (para 8)) Hence, a direction is issued to the respondent, keeping in view the above aspects, to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, on humanitarian ground, in any one of the posts to which he is suitable and pass orders thereon within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.