Judgment Being aggrieved by the order, dated 11.05.1999 and 25.05.1999 of the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, rejecting the request of the petitioner for employment assistance, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of her husband, late T.M. Perumal as Helper with effect from 312. 1992 and consider her case or any member of the family of the deceased for appointment on compassionate grounds. .2. Facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: .The petitioner’s husband was a contract employee in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Villpuram District, third respondent. Though he was continuously employed by the respondent, he was not made permanent. Similarly affected employees like the petitioner’s husband through their Union approached this Court for regularization. The Union also moved the Apex Court for abolition of Contract Employees system and for regularization. The Supreme Court, by its order, dated 10.04.1990, appointed Mr. Justice V. Khalid to ascertain the nature of work of the contract employees and he submitted his report on 11.02.1991. Taking into consideration of the report, the Apex Court directed the Tamilnadu Electricity Board to absorb the services of the contract employees in a phased manner within a stipulated time frame and further directed that such absorption should be completed before 312. 1992. .3. It is the case of the petitioner that though her husband was anxiously waiting for absorption as Helper in the respondents-board before the time frame fixed by the Supreme Court, he died on 18.09.1994, leaving behind herself with her two sons, viz., Murugan and Muniappan and a daughter, viz., Omsakthi as legal heirs. According to the petitioner, her husband was only the breadwinner of the family and the legal heirs were solely dependent on his income for livelihood. At the time of his death, her two sons and daughter were minors. After his demise, the third respondent has issued an order of appointment, dated 25.01.1995, appointing her husband as Helper in the regular Establishment Cadre, as per Mr. Justice Khalid Committee’s report. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made representations to the respondents on 4-5-1998, requesting them to provide employment assistance. Pursuant to a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister Cell, the Deputy Secretary, by his letter, dated 10.03.1999, requested her to furnish copies of all documents. Justice Khalid Committee’s report. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made representations to the respondents on 4-5-1998, requesting them to provide employment assistance. Pursuant to a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister Cell, the Deputy Secretary, by his letter, dated 10.03.1999, requested her to furnish copies of all documents. Accordingly, the particulars were furnished. Ultimately, by impugned order, dated 11.05.1999, the Chief Engineer .(Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, second respondent, has rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband was not a permanent employee. Consequently, the third respondent, by his letter, dated 25.05.1999, rejected her claim. In these circumstances, both the orders are challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have failed to note that the petitioner’s husband was a contract employee from 1979 as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the employees, numbering 18,006, ought to have been absorbed in three phases before 312. 1992. Had the respondents absorbed the petitioner’s husband before 312. 1992, he would have been a permanent employee and consequently, entitled to all the benefits and that the legal heirs also would have automatically come within the purview of compassionate appointment scheme. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the delay in absorbing the deceased by the respondents, cannot be put against the legal heirs in seeking employment assistance under the scheme. The deceased was not responsible for the delay and the beneficial scheme should be liberally construed, having regard to its object. In support of his contention, he relied on a few decisions of this Court in Gandhimathi S. v. Dy.Registrar of Co-op society reported in 2003 (III) LLJ 483, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Kumbakonam Division –I) Limited v. Lalitha reported in 2005 (2) CTC 246 and an unreported decision in The Special Officer, Melur Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Melur v. S. Jothilakshmi and others [W.A. (MD) No.558 of 2009, dated 011. 2009]. For the above said reasons, the petitioner prayed that a suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to provide employment to any member of the family. 6. Per contra, taking this Court through to the Permanent Board Proceedings Ms. (FB).No.46, Administration Branch, dated 110. 2009]. For the above said reasons, the petitioner prayed that a suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to provide employment to any member of the family. 6. Per contra, taking this Court through to the Permanent Board Proceedings Ms. (FB).No.46, Administration Branch, dated 110. 1995, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the existing scheme, employment assistance is being considered to the dependants of the employees of the Board, who died in harness and that as per Clause (2) of the above said proceedings, the deceased should be a regular employee of the Board. She further submitted that as petitioner’s husband was only a contract employee, at the time of his death and not a regular employee and therefore, the petitioner has no legal or statutory right to claim employment assistance under the scheme. It is her further contention that the Board is bound by the scheme and there cannot be any deviation. For the above said reasons, there is no manifest illegality in rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the rival submissions, a quick look at the permanent B.P.Ms. (FB).No.46, Administration Branch, dated 110. 1995, wherein, guidelines have been issued for employment assistance to the dependents of the deceased employees of the Board who died in service, is necessary. Permanent B.P.Ms.(FB)No.46 reads as follows: TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (ABSTRCT) RECRUITMENT-Employment assistance to the dependant of the deceased employees of the Board who died while in service-Appointment on Compassionate grounds-Modification Orders-Issued. (Adm. Branch) Permanent B.P.Ms.(FB)No.46 Dated 110. 1995 Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2026 Yuva Aandu Purattasi 26 READ: G.O.Ms.No.120 (Labour & Employment Department) Dated 26.06.1995. PROCEEDINGS: In the G.O. cited, the Government of Tamil Nadu (Labour and Employment Department) have issued the following modifications to the scheme of compassionate grounds appointment to the dependants of the deceased employees:- .(a) The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the Date of Death of Govt. Servant. .(b) The maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 years in the case of widows of the deceased Govt. Servants. 2. Servant. .(b) The maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 years in the case of widows of the deceased Govt. Servants. 2. As per the existing scheme in the Board, the employment assistance is being considered to the dependents of the employees of the Board who died while in service without any time limit for the submission of the application for employment assistance. It is specified that the age of Sons/Unmarried daughters, widowed or deserted daughters, divorced daughters should not be more than 30 years and in the case of widow 40 years on the date of death of the Board employee. 3. The Board has decided to adopt the orders of the Govt. Accordingly the following modification of the existing scheme of providing employment assistance to the dependents of the deceased employees of the board is ordered. .(1) The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the date of death of employees of the Board. (2) The Maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 (fifty) years in the case of widows of the deceased employees of the Board. .(3) In the case of already expired staff while in service the dependants should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order. (BY ORDER OF THE BOARD) OLNEY ARON CHIEF ENGINEER (PERSONNEL) 8. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the report of the Hon’ble Justice V. Khalid (Retired Judge of the Supreme Court), about 18,006 workers were directed to be absorbed in three phases in the Electricity Board and that a specific time limit was also fixed, i.e., 312. 1992. The petitioner’s husband died on 18.09.1994. Perusal of the Memo of the Additional Chief Engineer, Villupuram electricity Distribution Circle, Villupuram, dated 21.01.1995, shows that the petitioner’s husband was temporarily appointed as helper in the time scale of Rs.950-20-1050-30-1500/- in regular work establishment cadre of the Board under Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of absorption of the petitioner’s husband, after his death, was a mistake, yet the fact remains that the entitlement of his absorption in the Board, had already been decided, as per the report of Hon’ble Justice Khalid. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of absorption of the petitioner’s husband, after his death, was a mistake, yet the fact remains that the entitlement of his absorption in the Board, had already been decided, as per the report of Hon’ble Justice Khalid. Besides, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has considered his report and directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to absorb the services of those contract employees in a phased manner within the stipulated time. Had the petitioner’s husband survived for another period of three months, he would have been a regular employee of the Electricity Board. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the delay in absorbing the petitioner’s husband within the time frame, the petitioner should not be denied of her legitimate claim under the beneficial scheme. In his context, it is useful to refer to few judgments of this Court. 10. In Gandhimathi S. v. Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Society reported in 2003 (III) LLJ 483, the petitioner’s husband therein was engaged as a casual labourer in the third respondent therein-Milk Producers Federation and completed more than 480 days of service along with other casual labourers. The casual labourers approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, who by order, dated 3. 1996, directed regularization of 55 casual labourers, including the petitioner’s husband. But the petitioner’s husband passed away on 11. 1997, due to sudden heart attack. Wife of the deceased employee was granted Provident Fund as well as Insurance amount. As the petitioner’s husband died in harness, she submitted an application for appointment to her son on compassionate grounds and followed it with reminders. But her request was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner’s husband was not a permanent employee and therefore, she was not eligible to seek for compassionate appointment to her son. Testing the correctness of the said order, this Court, having found that the deceased was in continuous service for 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months and keeping in mind the statutory benefit conferred under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981, held that the deceased should be deemed to have been regularised on his completion of 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months and thus ceased to be a casual labourer. By applying the rule of deemed fiction, the impugned order was quashed and consequently, a direction was issued to the respondents therein to consider the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment and to provide employment under the scheme within a period of four months. 11. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited v. Laitha reported in 2005 (2) CTC 246 , the respondent therein was a widow. Her late husband was a driver in the service of the Transport Corporation, who was appointed in 1979. Due to heart ailment, he was compulsorily retired on medical grounds, by order, dated 12. 1995. Thereafter, on the representation made by him to the Corporation, a settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached, under which, he was re-employed as a mazdoor trainee, by order, dated 2. 1996. However, four days thereafter i.e., on 2. 1996, at the age of 44, he passed away. He was the only bread-winner of the family and left behind his wife and two daughters. Placing reliance on Clause (11) of G.O. Ms. No.680 Transport Department dated December, 1977, the Transport Corporation objected to the claim, contending inter alia that the dependents of such of those temporary employees who had put in more than 240 days of work in a year, before their demise, regularised and confirmed employees are alone eligible for this concession. Taking note of the principles contained in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Transport Corporation of India v. Employees Insurance Corporation [ 2000 (1) SCC 332 ], B.D. Shetty v. CEAT LIMITED [ 2002 (1) SCC 193 ] and Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh [ 1999 (3) SCC 601 ], the Division Bench repelled the contentions of the appellant therein and having regard to the fact that the respondent’s husband and already worked for more than 240 days, before his demise as Mazdoor and also of the fact that he had worked for more than 16 years in the Corporation, held that the employee’s wife was entitled to the benefit of the said Government Order. 12. In an unreported decision in The Special Officer, Melur Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Melur v. S. Jothilakshmi and others [W.A. (MD)No.558 of 2009, dated 011. 2009], wife of the deceased employee of the appellate-Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, made a claim for employment assistance on the death of her husband. 12. In an unreported decision in The Special Officer, Melur Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Melur v. S. Jothilakshmi and others [W.A. (MD)No.558 of 2009, dated 011. 2009], wife of the deceased employee of the appellate-Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, made a claim for employment assistance on the death of her husband. The said request was rejected on the ground that the deceased was not regularized in service and therefore, his wife was not entitled for compassionate appointment. A learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order and consequently, allowed the Writ Petition. When his decision was challenged by way of an appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, having regard to the length of service put in by the deceased employee and in the absence of any stringent provision in the scheme, extending the benefits of the scheme of compassionate appointment to dependants of a non-regular employee, whether such employee had been made permanent or yet to be made permanent, held that it was too technical to reject the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. On the facts of the above case, though the employee died on 111. 1996, just 14 days before the order of regularization, i.e., on 211. 1996, when 14 persons, including the deceased employee were regularised, the Division Bench observed that had he been alive, he would been regularised in service. In these circumstances, the Division Bench repelled the contention of the Special Officer, Cooperative Marketing Society, Mellur, appellant therein, and directed him to provide a suitable post to the petitioner in the Society. 13. A bare reading of Clause 2 of the Permanent Board Proceedings MS. (FB)No.46, Administration Branch, dated 110. 1995, does not indicate that employment assistance can be given to the dependents of only a regular Board employee. The said clause merely states that “Board Employee”. 13. A bare reading of Clause 2 of the Permanent Board Proceedings MS. (FB)No.46, Administration Branch, dated 110. 1995, does not indicate that employment assistance can be given to the dependents of only a regular Board employee. The said clause merely states that “Board Employee”. Applying the principles laid down by this Court in the above cases, in the matter of providing employment assistance to the dependents of a deceased employee, whether a casual labourer or Mazdoor trainee or temporary employee, but waiting for the orders of regularization, this Court is of the view that if the entitlement of the employee for regularization/absorption had already been decided by the competent authorities, but for any bona fide reason, an order could not be issued in time, the delay not attributable to the deceased employee, a sole breadwinner of the family, then the dependents of such employee should not be denied of employment assistance on the sole ground that the deceased was not a regular or permanent employee. The laudable object of the scheme is to tide over the financial constraint on account of sudden demise. If the employer had taken a decision to regularize an employee, but unfortunately, the employee dies before an order could be issued, then the employer, keeping in mind, the object of the scheme should render an helping hand to his family, having regard to the length of service put in by the deceased and should not try to extricate himself by contending that the deceased employee was not a regular employee, when admittedly the delay is attributable to the employer. The scheme of employment assistance of the Electricity Board should be liberally construed to give effect to its laudable object. As stated supra, merely because, there was a delay in absorption, the dependents should not be made to suffer, consequent to the sudden demise of the employee. 14. For the above said reasons, the impugned order is set aside and there shall be a direction to consider the case of the petitioner or any member of the family for compassionate appointment within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.