Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is the first wife of the deceased Veerasamy who was an employee of the Electricity Board. When he was working as an Helper in the Board on 110. 1977 he got electrocuted and died instantaneously. Subsequent to his death there were claims from two sets of legal representatives to the said deceased Veerasamy who had two wives and eight children. 3. On account of his death, a Workmens Compensation claim was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C.No.61/1983 and the amount was ordered in his favour by the Commissioner on 21. 1982. Since there was a dispute among the family members, the matter was also taken to the Civil Court with reference to the entitlement of the benefits arising out of death of Veerasamy. The Civil Suit being O.S.No.410/1981 was decreed in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled to the assets of deceased Veerasamy vide judgment dated 11. 1983. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter they were asking for compassionate appointment and also settlement of terminal benefits on account of death of Veerasamy in the year 1977. According to the petitioner, the service records were found missing and they were tracing out the records and in the meanwhile, they were also informed that unless the terminal benefits issue was settled, the question of considering the request for compassionate appointment may not arise. 5. Subsequently, it is after correspondence between the parties, the petitioner made a request for compassionate appointment in favour of her son Varadhan. It must be noted that the said Varadhan was only seven years old at the time of death of Veerasamy, who died on 110. 1977. There was no request for employment for the petitioner but on the contrary, she preferred to seek an employment to her son Varadhan in preference to the other children. As the Board did not comply with that request, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to provide compassionate appointment to her son Varadhan and also to settle the terminal benefits. 6. Mrs.Yamunadevi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the year 2003 itself the terminal benefits have been settled. As the Board did not comply with that request, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to provide compassionate appointment to her son Varadhan and also to settle the terminal benefits. 6. Mrs.Yamunadevi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the year 2003 itself the terminal benefits have been settled. With reference to provision of compassionate appointment the learned counsel submits that that the request for compassionate appointment cannot be considered and that the said issue had already been covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in E.RAMASAMY V. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1080 which was rendered in respect of the Board itself. 7. However, Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.39010/2002 dated 10.09.2005 has held that while Kith and Kin of a person in the event of natural death are provided with compassionate appointment, much more attention should be given to the legal representatives of the persons who die while performing duties. Therefore, in the present case, since the petitioner’s husband died due to electrocution, this case should be dealt with sympathy. He also submitted that the Division Bench judgment in Ramasamy’s case (cited supra) will have no direct bearing and his case comes within the norms prescribed by the Board in B.P.No.46 dated 110. 1995 where there is no limitation prescribed in case of persons who have died before the cut-off date. 8. This Court is unable to agree with both the submissions. For persons who had died before the B.P., if there is any death, they should make application within three years. In this case, though she has made an application within three years, the cause of action of making any application for compassionate appointment arose in the year 1977 and in the civil case, no stay application has been made. Even thereafter when the issue relating to the terminal benefits was resolved in 1983, there was no such application. At the relevant time, the said Varadhan, son of the petitioner, was only a minor and was ineligible to apply for any such post in the Board. 9. Even thereafter when the issue relating to the terminal benefits was resolved in 1983, there was no such application. At the relevant time, the said Varadhan, son of the petitioner, was only a minor and was ineligible to apply for any such post in the Board. 9. The Supreme Court has held in many decisions referred to in Ramasamys case (cited supra) that compassionate appointment in exercise of Articles 14 and 16 and the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to immediately mitigate the hardship due to the death of the member of the family. The fact that her son was a minor at the time of death of his father, is not a ground to delay in sending application unless the scheme itself provides that as and when a minor becomes a major, he could be appointed without any time limit. In the present case, if any such direction is given that would amount to providing an employment after a period of 31 years. The argument that Ramasamys case has no direct application is stated to be rejected. Further, the judgment of the learned judge relied on by the petitioner is only an observation and is not with reference to any particular scheme and it cannot have a binding precedent in the light of the Division Bench Judgment in Ramasamy’s case which squarely covers this issue. 10. The Supreme Court vide its decision in STATE BANK OF INDIA V. SOMVIR SINGH reported in 2007 (4) SCC 778 in paras 7 and 10 have observed as follows:- "7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer." 10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be." 11. Further the Supreme Court in its decision in I.G.(KARMIK) AND OTHERS V. PRAHALAD MANI TRIPATHI reported in 2007 (6) SCC 162 in para 7 has observed as follows: "7.Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." 12. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.