Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Mujibur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by the 4th respondent and for a direction to the respondents to pass an order of appointment for any suitable post on compassionate ground in any of the Government Schools, the petitioner is before this Court. 3 Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit would run thus: (i) The petitioner’s father Mr. Abdul Hafeez was working as B.T. Assistant under the Education Department in the Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur and he died on 15.10.1993 at the age of 50, while he was in service. At the time of his father ‘ s death, the petitioner was aged 13 years and he was doing 8th standard only. The petitioner completed SSLC in the year 1995. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted an application to the 4th respondent on 30.12.1999 and requested for an appointment on compassionate ground. Prior to that, his mother submitted an application on 23.6.1999 to the 4th respondent for compassionate appointment. The 4th respondent, by his letter dated 10.9.1999 directed the petitioner ‘ s mother to submit certain details through the Head Master Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur. Accordingly, the petitioner ‘ s mother submitted a detailed representation along with necessary particulars to the 4th respondent on 5.1.2000. The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur, by his proceedings dated 9.3.2000 informed the petitioner ‘ s mother that only one application should be submitted for compassionate appointment. Therefore, as per the proforma, the particulars of the petitioner was again submitted on 14.6.2000. (ii) The petitioner‘s mother also submitted an application on 21.6.2000, requesting compassionate appointment to the petitioner alone. The No Objection Certificate from the petitioner‘s sister was also enclosed with the application submitted by his mother. The 2nd respondent, by his proceedings dated 18.9.2002 directed the 4th respondent to get certain details to be obtained from the Tahsildar by the petitioner‘s mother with respect to the non-employment certificate. The petitioner‘s mother once again submitted a detailed representation in January 2003 enclosing the non-employment certificate, etc. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, by his proceedings dated 1.8.2007 rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner‘s mother was eligible for compassionate appointment at the time of death of his father. The petitioner‘s mother once again submitted a detailed representation in January 2003 enclosing the non-employment certificate, etc. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, by his proceedings dated 1.8.2007 rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner‘s mother was eligible for compassionate appointment at the time of death of his father. The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur, by his letter dated 26.9.2007 directed the petitioner to get back the papers returned by the 4th respondent. (iii) Therefore, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the 4th respondent through the Head master, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur, which was forwarded to the 4th respondent on 8.10.2007, by the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur. The 4th respondent, by his proceedings dated 12.10.2007, directed the petitioner to submit the certificate from the Tahsildar with respect to the elder son who is living separately without extending any financial support to the petitioner and his mother. On 7.7.2008, the 4th respondent again informed the petitioner that the direction issued to the petitioner, by letter dated July 2008 should be complied with and resubmitted on or before 17.7.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner, by his representation dated 17.7.2008, submitted all the necessary details. By a letter dated 5.8.2008, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to submit details about O.S. No. 4234 of 1993 on the file of the Sub-Court, Trichy. (iv) On 11.8.2008, a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. Again, the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings dated 29.8.2008, informed the 4th respondent with a direction to the petitioner to obtain the ration card copy and No Objection Certificate from the elder son. The 4th respondent, by his letter dated 30.10.2008 informed the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur and directed him to get details from the petitioner as per the letter dated 29.8.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the details to the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur. But, the 4th respondent, by an impugned order dated 6.11.2009, rejected the petitioner‘s application for compassionate appointment and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the details to the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Sirugambur. But, the 4th respondent, by an impugned order dated 6.11.2009, rejected the petitioner‘s application for compassionate appointment and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. They have stated that the very purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground is only to help the family of the deceased Government Servant to tide over the sudden indigent circumstances, unexpectedly created by the sudden death of the Government Servant. So, the appointment should therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family from distress and the provision of compassionate appointment after a lapse of very long time, i.e. more than 16 years, defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment. Hence, it cannot be considered that the family of the deceased Government Servant is in indigent circumstances. 4a. The petitioner is the last son of the deceased Government Servant. The first son would have applied for compassionate appointment soon after the death of the Government Servant on 15.10.1993. At the time of the demise of the Government Servant, the applicant was a minor. Rules do not permit the request of the petitioner being his last son, to be conceded with. 4b. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour & Employee Department in their letter No. 202 dated 8.10.2007 has prescribed a time limit of 3 years for filing of applications from the date of death of the Government Servant and has also stated therein that the said order is applicable to all, present, past & future cases. According to the petitioner, he preferred an application for compassionate appointment initially on 30.12.1999 after a lapse of 6 years. The Supreme Court of India, in its S.L.P. No. 12876 of 2000 has also ordered that there is no need to keep a post vacant for the purpose of compassionate appointment in the case of the legal heirs of the Government Servants who died in harness, until they reach the age of 18. 4c. According to the respondents, the petitioner has given wrong information for getting an appointment on compassionate ground, especially, his elder brother Sulthan Basha‘s name is ignored in the Legal Heir Certificate and the marriage dates of his sisters are wrongly given in the Appointment proposal. 4c. According to the respondents, the petitioner has given wrong information for getting an appointment on compassionate ground, especially, his elder brother Sulthan Basha‘s name is ignored in the Legal Heir Certificate and the marriage dates of his sisters are wrongly given in the Appointment proposal. The petitioner‘s sisters have given a statement that they got married only after the death of their father. But, in the appointment proposal, the applicant has stated that his sisters ‘ marriages were held before his father ‘ s demise. The respondents would state that the correct position is Tmt.Fathima, W/o Abdul Azees, 37 years (2) Nazeer Sulthan Basha, his name is ignored in the legal heir certificate (3) Selvi. Jabarunnisa, aged 19 years and (4) Kabarunnisa, aged 17 years. The said four persons were sidelined and the applicant seeks appointment on compassionate ground, which is against the rulings and orders of the Government. Hence, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Theonly contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for appointment following the death of his father and, to which effect, the petitioner has also submitted an application to the respondents, but the same was rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order without assigning any good reason and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 5a. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following: (i) a decision of this Court in the case of T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others (2004) 4 MLJ 238 at p. 239 of MLJ: “ 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed 18 years of age only in the year 2006. When the petitioner‘s earlier application was rejected on the ground that he did not complete 18 years of age, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not diligent in seeking for compassionate appointment at the earliest point of time. In fact, immediately after attaining 18 years of age and also after qualifying on 4.7.2000, in all fairness, the respondent should have considered the petitioner‘s claim on merits. In fact in the application, the petitioner would claim that one of his sisters is mentally retarded and therefore, he is the only bread winner of the family. 4. In fact, immediately after attaining 18 years of age and also after qualifying on 4.7.2000, in all fairness, the respondent should have considered the petitioner‘s claim on merits. In fact in the application, the petitioner would claim that one of his sisters is mentally retarded and therefore, he is the only bread winner of the family. 4. In such circumstances, it was a deserving case where the respondent should have shown some compassion while considering the petitioner‘s application for compassionate appointment. Unfortunately, the respondent did not seem to have shown any compassion at all and mercilessly rejected the petitioner‘s application on a hyper technical ground. ” (ii) another decision of this Court in the case of M. Uma v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and Another (2010) 7 MLJ 644 at p. 648 of MLJ: “ 713. Though the learned single Judge while rejecting the request of the petitioner relied on judgment of one of us (PSJ) made in W.P. No. 14134 of 1991 dated 25.1.1999 and the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 476 as well as the case of State of U.P. v. Parasnath (1998) 2 SCC 412 , for the same reasons as stated in para 11 above, those judgments are not directly applicable to the case on hand. In the case of G. Vijayaraghavan v. General Manager (P) Indian Bank 2000 (3) LLN 625, learned single Judge of this Court (PSJ) in similar circumstances directed the Indian Bank to consider the claim of the petitioner therein, who made an application on attaining majority for employment on compassionate ground. In that decision, it is held that, irrespective of settlement of full term service gratuity and other benefits, eligible person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds. (iii) yet another judgment of this Court, dated 17.6.2010 made in W.P. No. 3078 of 2006 in the case of R. Prasath v. Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and Others “ 16. In that decision, it is held that, irrespective of settlement of full term service gratuity and other benefits, eligible person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds. (iii) yet another judgment of this Court, dated 17.6.2010 made in W.P. No. 3078 of 2006 in the case of R. Prasath v. Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and Others “ 16. Though we are conscious of the directions of the Supreme Court which we have already referred to in the earlier part of our order, in view of the Board ‘ s proceedings referred to above and of the fact that that the petitioner has made an application within three years from the date of death of her husband, i.e. , within the prescribed period and also made subsequent application as directed by the 2nd respondent and also taking note of the assertion of the petitioner that after her husband ‘ s death, in the absence of any income, she is living in poverty, her claim has to be considered. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 493 . wherein, their Lordships have held that in the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the , denial of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointments, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook. We do not find any delay or laches on the part of the petitioner, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge in our case and we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for consideration of her claim. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petition, viz. W.P. No. 21512 of 2003 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner‘s application dated 13.1.2003 on merits and provide necessary relief. “ (iv) a Supreme Court decision in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and Others (2006) 9 SCC 195 “ 5. W.P. No. 21512 of 2003 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner‘s application dated 13.1.2003 on merits and provide necessary relief. “ (iv) a Supreme Court decision in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and Others (2006) 9 SCC 195 “ 5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years ‘ old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State, there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependants are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application. 6. As the widow had submitted the Application in time the authorities should have considered her Application. As eleven years have passed she would ‘ not be in a position to join the Government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance for which the appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent-authorities to consider the application of the appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ” (v) a decision of this Court in the case of Mohanambal v. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram and Others (2011) 2 MLJ 47 : 2011 (1) CTC 349 at p. 49 of MLJ: “ 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ” (v) a decision of this Court in the case of Mohanambal v. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram and Others (2011) 2 MLJ 47 : 2011 (1) CTC 349 at p. 49 of MLJ: “ 9. Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Syed Khadim v. State of Bihar (supra), wherein also the Supreme Court considered the fact that the wife of the deceased, having applied for compassionate appointment in time and as she was found not eligible, the Application submitted by the other legal heir was directed to be considered even after the lapse of eleven years. 11. Similar claim of the deceased Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee was considered and relief granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Indirani Ammal v. Chief Engineer, TNEB, W.A. No. 3050 of 2003 dated 8.3.2005 (P. SATHASIVAM, J. (as he then was) and S.K.K.,J.). The said decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 dated 30.3.2010. Another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 dated 2.7.2009 also took the same view, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 8305 of 2010 dated 6.7.2010. The contra view taken by another Division Bench of this Court was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2858- 2859 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010. 12. Here in this case, the petitioner‘s mother applied for compassionate appointment within one year and she was not given appointment due to want of minimum qualification of 8th standard and the petitioner being the only other legal heir, pursuing the matter and agitating her right for all these years. In the light of the present financial status of the petitioner, the decision in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar (supra) applies to the facts of this case. ” 6 On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis of the deceased Government Servant, but, in this case, the petitioner has submitted an application on 30.12.1999, which is much after a period of six years and against the Rules and therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In support of his contentions, he has relied on a judgment in the case of Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. P. Muthukumar. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: “ 27. Direction for appointment on compassionate ground in Electricity Board for the dependants of deceased employee came up for consideration before the First Bench in 2007 Writ L.R. 796 in the case of E. Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another. Referring to various judgments, the Hon ‘ ble Supreme Court observing that the Courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of the Scheme in force, governed by Rules/Regulations/instructions. The first Bench of this Court has held as under: 15. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others (2000) 7 SCC 193 , Justice M. JAGANNADHA RAO speaking for the Bench held as follows: “ We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that Compassionate Appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact, such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192 . It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1998, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. ” 30. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, as pointed out earlier, the respondent‘s father retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 20.11.1995. As per B.P.Ms. (F.B.) 46, (Adm. Branch), dated 13.10.1995 read with B.P.Ms. (F.B.) 51, the application should be made within three years from the date of retirement on medical grounds. The application even though made within three years, the respondent has not completed 18 years and was not eligible for appointment. As per B.P.Ms. (F.B.) 46, (Adm. Branch), dated 13.10.1995 read with B.P.Ms. (F.B.) 51, the application should be made within three years from the date of retirement on medical grounds. The application even though made within three years, the respondent has not completed 18 years and was not eligible for appointment. There cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time he becomes a major after number of years, unless there are specific provisions. No such specific provision was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondent. The subsequent application was made beyond three years and rejected by the Board. When the Board declined Compassionate Appointment and has taken a decision not to deviate from the provisions underlying the scheme, the Court cannot compel the authorities to exercise discretion in a particular manner. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be interfered with. ” 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner‘s father was employed with the respondent Department and he died in harness on 15.10.1993. At that time, the petitioner was aged about 13 years and he was doing 8th standard. Thereafter, the petitioner‘s mother applied for Legal Heir Certificate and obtained the same on 4.11.1993 and a Certificate dated 16.6.1999 was issued by the Tahsildar certifying that the petitioner‘s mother was receiving ` 1,250/- as family pension. Though the petitioner has not stated in his pleadings anything about the suit in O.S. No. 4234 of 1993, in which the petitioner‘s mother was a party, a copy of the decree dated 8.12.1998 dismissing the said suit as settled out of Court do find place in the records. In the meantime, the petitioner completed SSLC and on attaining the age of majority, he submitted an application to the 4th respondent on 30.12.1999 requesting him to provide compassionate appointment. 9. It is true, as contended by the learned Government Advocate, that the objective of providing compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden indigent circumstances unexpectedly created by the sudden death of the Government Servant. 9. It is true, as contended by the learned Government Advocate, that the objective of providing compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden indigent circumstances unexpectedly created by the sudden death of the Government Servant. As the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and at the same time his mother was also not eligible for appointment, he could not submit any application for compassionate appointment. Instead, he, immediately after attaining majority, submitted an application to the respondents. Just because there is a delay in submitting the application for the said reason by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased Government servant has got over the indigent circumstances. It is seen from the records that the two sisters of the petitioner are married and the brother is living separately. Now, the persons left out in the family are the petitioner and his mother, who are without any job and in every need of employment. In the given situation, it is very difficult for them to get two square meals a day. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the family of the deceased government servant cannot be left in lurch. 10. In the case of G. Vijayaraghavan v. General Manager (P) Indian Bank (2000) 3 MLJ 331 : 2000 (3) LLN 625, this Court has directed the Indian Bank to consider the claim of the petitioner therein, who made an application on attaining majority for employment on compassionate ground. The principle laid down in the said decision is that irrespective of settlement of full term service, gratuity and other benefits, the eligible person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1596 : (2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000-II-LLJ-1 , the legal proposition is that in the case of appointment, considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the , denial of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. It is further observed therein that the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances. It is further observed therein that the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances. The Supreme Court, in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and Others (supra), holding that in the rules framed by the State, there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependants are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application, allowed the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 11. In a similar circumstance, in the case of M. Uma v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai (supra), wherein the petitioner‘s application was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted the same within three years, this Court, taking into account the indigent circumstances of the family directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order. Also are cases in Mohanambal v. Director, Land & Survey Department (supra) and R. Prasath v. Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and Others (supra), wherein, this Court has held that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is not to be rejected on the ground that it was filled after a lapse of time and the application is to be considered on its own merits. 12. It is also worth referring to a decision in the case of Sushma Gosain and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 : (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1990-I-LLJ-169 wherein, the Supreme Court, on the principle of considering the mitigating circumstances and hardship, has held as follows: “ 7. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. ” 13. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. ” 13. Of course, there cannot be any reservation of vacancy till such time the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years. In the case on hand, since the sudden death of the government servant had left his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, I feel it justified that the petitioner can be accommodated in any suitable post as per his qualification, as against the post held by his father. 14. In view of the legal propositions laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner‘s claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied and therefore, the impugned order dated 6.11.2009 passed by the 4th respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order i.e. , the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of death of his father, but taking into account the fact that the sudden death of his father has left his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 is closed.