Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of 1st Respondent in Roc.No.275/06/T4, dated 12.07.2006 and to direct the 2nd Respondent to regularize the appointment of the Petitioner as junior Assistant with effect from 25.09.1986. 2. Factual background which lead to the filing of writ petition are as follows: (i) S. Devanesan served as basic servant in Assistant Educational Office, Valparai and passed away on 110. 1982, while in service. Consequent on the death of S. Devanesan, the legal heir and the son of the deceased employee D. Packiasamu, the Petitioner herein was initially appointed as Office Assistant on compassionate ground in the Assistant Educational Office, Valparai by the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Valparai in proceedings Roc.No.908/83/A1, dated 02.02.1984. The Petitioner joined as Office Assistant on 01.03.1984 F.N at Assistant Educational Office, Valparai. Pursuant to letter of Director of Rural Development, Chennai in his letter Roc.No.129551/85/F2, dated 27.03.1986, petitioner was temporarily promoted as Junior Assistant in proceedings Roc.280223/86/T2 dated 22.09.1986 and Petitioner joined duty on 25.09.1986 as Junior Assistant. Petitioner has passed all departmental test for Rural Development and Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Assistant by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings Roc.No.119926/94/T3, dated 010. 1994. (ii) Proposal seeking regularisation of service of the Petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground was sent to Government through Director of Rural Development of Chennai on 24.01.1995. The Government returned the proposal stating that the appointment of Petitioner as Office Assistant on compassionate ground is illegal and requested the 1st Respondent to take disciplinary action against the persons responsible. Accordingly disciplinary action was also taken against the then Block Development Officer. (iii) Proposal requesting regularisation of the Petitioner as Junior Assistant has been returned by the Government by the impugned letter No.6844/E3/2002-16, dated 01.06.2006. As per impugned letter the appointment of Petitioner on compassionate ground is said to suffer from following defects and irregularities. 2. The defects pointed out in the impugned letter reads as under: 1. D.Packiyasamu, is the elder son of the second wife of the deceased Panchayat Union employee S.Devanesan Office Assistant. As per G.O.M.S.No. 34 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.04.2002 the heirs of the second wife of the deceased employees are not eligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. 2. The defects pointed out in the impugned letter reads as under: 1. D.Packiyasamu, is the elder son of the second wife of the deceased Panchayat Union employee S.Devanesan Office Assistant. As per G.O.M.S.No. 34 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.04.2002 the heirs of the second wife of the deceased employees are not eligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. 2. As the certificates on indigenous circumstances of the family and none of the family members are working in Government and private institutions were obtained on 04.08.2001, the individual should have been appointed only after getting and scrutinizing the above certificates i.e. Well before 01.03.1984. 3. The concurrence of the TNPSC has not been obtained before appointing the individual who has served as Office Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant, which comes under the purview of TNPSC. As such it is against the G.O.No.444 Labour and Employment Department dated 23.02.1981. 4. The individual has been promoted as Assistant from Junior Assistant even before the regularization of the appointment of Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. 5. Even though Jeyaseele, the second wife of the deceased employee is in service as school conductress, D. Packiyasamy has been given employment assistance, which is against the rules. 3. Stating that the Petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Office Assistant as well as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds Petitioner was terminated from service. 4. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. V. Suthakar, contended that after a lapse of 22 years 1st Respondent passed order of termination stating that the Petitioners appointment of compassionate grounds is illegal. It was further submitted that at the time of demise of Petitioners father on 1982 the family was indigenous condition and Petitioner was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds and while so the impugned order and subsequent termination order are unsustainable. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. N. Senthilkumar, has submitted that the Petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Office Assistant and that appointment on compassionate ground is illegal and Petitioner has no rights to claim entitlement to the benefits of compassionate ground appointment and the irregularities in such appointments can never be condoned. 6. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. N. Senthilkumar, has submitted that the Petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Office Assistant and that appointment on compassionate ground is illegal and Petitioner has no rights to claim entitlement to the benefits of compassionate ground appointment and the irregularities in such appointments can never be condoned. 6. The first ground on which the compassionate ground is stated to be illegal is G.O.Ms.No.34 Labour and Employment Department dated 15.04.2002 and as per which heirs of second wife of the deceased employee are not eligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. Petitioners father Devanesans first wife died on 09.07.1956 thereafter Petitioners father is said to have married Petitioners mother. In the legal heir ship certificate issued by Tahsildar valparai Petitioners mother, 2nd wife Jayaseeli, sons and daughters born through her also shown to be legal heirs of Devanesan. When Devanesan has married Petitioner mother after the death of his first wife the marriage of Petitioners mother cannot be termed as illegal. 7. In any event G.O.Ms.No.34, Labour and Employment Department, dated 15.04.2002 cannot be retrospectively applied to the case of the Petitioner where the Petitioner was appointed way back in 1984. 8. Yet another ground stated in the impugned order is that Petitioners mother Jeyaseeli-second wife is stated to be in service as school conductress. According to the Petitioner his mother was working as school conductress only on meagre amount of consolidated pay of Rs.400/- per month, and the same cannot be an impediment for giving employment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground. The Respondents were not able to substantiate that the Petitioner mother was a regularized Government servant at the time the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. 9. The Petitioner appointed as Office Assistant in 1984, was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1986. Later Petitioner was promoted as Assistant by the proceedings Roc.No.119926/94/T3, dated 010. 1994. Petitioner was working for about 22 years. When the Petitioner having been allowed to work for 22 years the same cannot be stifled nearly after two decades. In (2002 AIR SCW 2684) Union of India and others v. K.P. Tiwari, Honble Supreme Court has held that the person appointed on compassionate ground was in service for more than five years and Supreme Court declined to uproot Respondent from his livelihood. 10. Above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. In (2002 AIR SCW 2684) Union of India and others v. K.P. Tiwari, Honble Supreme Court has held that the person appointed on compassionate ground was in service for more than five years and Supreme Court declined to uproot Respondent from his livelihood. 10. Above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. Respondents cannot uproot the Petitioner after 22 years of his appointment. 11. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the Respondents are directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner.