JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner's father was employed as a Village Administrative Officer at Alangulam, Tirunelveli District. He died on 15.1.1987 while in service, leaving behind his wife, the petitioner, three sons and three daughters, as his legal heirs. The elder son was already married, and also had two children and was living separately at the time of death of the petitioner's father. ( 2. ) WHILESO, the Government issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.1993, providing compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased Government Servant, and if one of the legal heirs was in employment, if the employed legal heir was living separately and did not extend support to the family of the deceased Government Servant. ( 3. ) IN these circumstances, the petitioner made an application dated 16.8.1993, to the 2nd respondent seeking compassionate appointment, based on the aforesaid G.O. 155. Based on his application, the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, was asked to send a report as to the indigent, circumstances of the family of the deceased Government Servant. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, sent a report on 26.12.1993 to the 2nd respondent, through the Tahsildar, Sankaran Kovil stating that he family was in indigent circumstances. However, the 2nd respondent entertained a doubt as to whether the petitioner could be given employment under G.O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.1953. He addressed a letter to the Government. The Government sent a letter dated 31.12.1994, directing the 2nd respondent to entertain the application of the petitioner and to appoint him as Junior Assistant in future vacancies. When additional posts of Junior Assistant cum Typist were sanctioned on 15.2.1995, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant, by order dated 22.3.1995 of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner joined the said post on 24.3.1995 and he has been working in the said post from 24.3.1995 onwards. ( 4. ) WHILESO, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2823 of 1999, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, seeking regularisation of his services, since, he was not granted increments and other service benefits. ( 5. ) ON abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No.39009 of 2006. ( 6. ( 5. ) ON abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No.39009 of 2006. ( 6. ) THE said writ petition was disposed of on 20.3.2009, directing the respondents therein, to consider the proposal dated 1.7.1998 sent by the 2nd respondent for regularisation of the service of the petitioner and to pass orders thereon within three months. As directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent sent proposal dated 1.7.1998, recommending regularisation of the service of the petitioner, but the 1st respondent seems to have passed an order dated 17.9.1998 stating that G.O. Ms. No. 155 could not have been applied and compassionate appointment could not have been given to the petitioner, as the father of the petitioner died before the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 155. The 1st respondent issued a letter dated 27.7.1954 stating that G.O. Ms. No. 155 could be applied only to the cases of Government Servant, who died after 16.7.1993. In view of the said order dated 17.9.1998 of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 19.4.1999, terminating the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 3084 of 1999 (W.P. No. 43372 of 2006), to quash the said order and for a direction to regularise his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment namely, 22.3.1995. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural, justice, as the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order. Further, it is submitted that the 1 st respondent passed an order dated 17.9.1998 behind the back of the petitioner, rejecting the proposal of the 2nd respondent, dated 1.7.1998 for regularising the service of the petitioner and based on the said order, the impugned order was passed. Hence, the entire exercise is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it is contended that the 1st respondent relies on the earlier letter dated 27.7.1954 of the Labour and Employment Department that G.O. Ms. No. 155, could not be applied in cases of the death of the Government Servant, which took place prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 155. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no such direction given in the letter dated 27.7.1994. No. 155, could not be applied in cases of the death of the Government Servant, which took place prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 155. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no such direction given in the letter dated 27.7.1994. He has taken me through the aforesaid letter dated 27.7.1994 of the 1st respondent, which is enclosed at page No. 33 of the consolidated typed set of papers. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, the 1st respondent herein, wrote a letter dated31.12.1994, permitting the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds, when the 2nd respondent, entertained a doubt as to whether G.O. Ms. No. 155, could be applied to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated19.4.1999 is bad. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that the First Bench of this Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.P. Tiwari, (2003) 9 SCC 129 : 2002-I-LLJ-672, and in DM. Premkumari v. The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, 2009 (2) Supreme 271 : LNIND 2009 SC279, and held that persons who are appointed on compassionate grounds, could not be terminated, after they rendered long years of service, if the appointment was irregular and the commission of irregularity was not due to the person concerned. ( 9. ) NO counter affidavit is filed. However, there are written instructions given to the Learned Additional Government Pleader and based on which, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents made submissions and seeks to sustain the impugned order. It is also submitted that the petitioner could avail alternative remedy by way of appeal. ( 10. ) I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record. ( 11. ) AT the outset, I reject the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader seeking to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, since the matter has been pending here for the past 12 years. Further, there is no absolute fetter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to entertain a writ petition, if there is availability of alternative remedy. Further, there is no absolute fetter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to entertain a writ petition, if there is availability of alternative remedy. It is the discretion of the Court, taking into account various factors to entertain a writ petition, even if there is availability of alternative remedy. In my view, it is a fit case where this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion to entertain the writ petition and not to dislodge after 12 years. ( 12. ) THE facts are not in dispute. The petitioner's father died on 15.1.1987. He was employed as a Village Administrative Officer at Alangulam, Tirunelveli District. The petitioner made an application on 16.8.1993 for compassionate appointment, based on G.O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.1993. The 2nd respondent, directed the concerned Tahsildar to enquire into the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased Government Servant. The Tahsildar also sent a report dated 26.12.1993 stating that the family of the deceased Government Servant was in indigent circumstances. It is also stated by the Tahsildar that the elder brother of the petitioner got married and had two children and was living separately, at the time of death of the petitioner's father. It is also stated that the elder brother did not extend any help to the family of the deceased Government Servant. However, the 2nd respondent entertained a doubt as to whether G.O. Ms. No. 155 could be applied to the case of the petitioner and he sought clarification from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by letter dated 31.12.1994, directed the 2nd respondent to entertain the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to appoint him as Junior Assistant in future vacancies. Thereafter, additional posts of Junior Assistant cum Typist were created on 15.2.1995 in Tirunelveli District. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 22.3.1995, appointing the petitioner as Junior Assistant. ( 13. ) AS rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed by the 2nd respondent only after the 1st respondent clarified the appointment of the petitioner in the aforesaid letter dated 31.12.1994. The clarification issued by the 1 st respondent in the latter dated 31.12.1994 to the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder. "REVENUE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT From Thiru. M. Ragupathy, I.A.S., Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Madras - 5. The clarification issued by the 1 st respondent in the latter dated 31.12.1994 to the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder. "REVENUE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT From Thiru. M. Ragupathy, I.A.S., Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Madras - 5. To The Collector, Tirunelveli - Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli-9 (W.B) K. Dis. (A) 5879S/94 dt. 31.12.1994 Sir, Sub: Public Services - Tamilnadu Ministrial service - Tirunelveli Kattabomman District - Thiru. S. Vaikundan. S/o. Late Thiru. Shanmugam Pillai, Formerly Village Administrative Officer, Alangulam Village - Appointment as Junior Assistant on Compassionate grounds - Proposal sent certain instructions - Issued. Ref: Your Lr. No. B1.19819 of 1994 dt. 18.6.1994 The proposal sent with the reference cited has been examined. I request you to register the name of Thiru. S. Vaikundam S/o. Late Thiru Shanmugam Pillai, formerly Village Administrative Officer. Alangulam Village in the waiting list if he satisfies all the conditions for employment on compassionate grounds, appoint him temporarily as and when vacancy arises to his turn and send necessary proposals for regulation of services in due course. 2. All the records received with your reference cited as specified in the Annexure to this reference are returned herewith. Their receipt may be acknowledged early. Yours faithfully, Sd/- R. Velu, For Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Admn." ( 14. ) FURTHER, the 2nd respondent sent a proposal dated 1.7.1998 to the Government for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, but the 1st respondent rejected the same, by order dated 17.9.1998, and directed the 2nd respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 19.4.1999, terminating the services of the petitioner. While the 1st respondent passed the order dated 17.9.1998, directing the 2nd respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner by relying on the letter dated 27.7.1994 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, the 1st respondent erroneously proceeds, as if, in the letter doted 27.7.1994, it was stated that G.O. Ms. No. 155 could be applied only prospectively and it could not be applied in the cases of the death of the Government Servant that took place before 16.7.1993. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no such indication in the said letter dated 27.7.1994 that G.O. Ms. No. 155 could be applied only prospectively and it could not be applied in the cases of the death of the Government Servant that took place before 16.7.1993. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no such indication in the said letter dated 27.7.1994 that G.O. Ms. No. 155 could be applied only to the cases of the death of the Government Servant, who died prior to 16.7.1993. For better appreciation, the said letter dated 27.7.1994 is reproduced hereunder. "Government of Tamilnadu Labour and Employment Department I.R. No. 57630/01/93-2/dt. 27.7.1994 Copy of letter No. 57630/01/S3-2/dt. 27.7.1994 from Secretary to Government addressed to the Director of Stationery and Printing, Madras-2 and copy to all Heads of Departments. Sub: Compassionate ground appointments certain concessions Ordered clarification - issued. Ref: Your letter No. 26249/B-3/93/dt. 13.9.1993 In G.O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment, dt. 16.7.1993 the government have issued the- following orders:1. The criteria for deciding the indigent circumstances of the family, of a deceased Government Servant is that the family should not own any house of landed properties, or if owned, the income from which, insufficient to sustain the family. A certificate from the Tahsildar to this effect will have to be produced. ii. Then the dependent of the family of the Deceased Govt. Servant was employed even before the death of the Government Servant and was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependant will be considered. iii. A married daughter who is deserted by her husband and living with the family of the deceased Govt. Servant and the divorced daughter living with the family may be considered, provided the widow of the deceased Govt. Servant gives her consent in writing. 2. In this connection, clarification has been sought for as to the date of effect to be given to the orders issued in the said Government order. It is hereby clarified that the casea need not to be re-opened. The orders issued in the said G.O. would therefore, the applicable to the cases pending as on 16.7.1993 and to future cases only." ( 15. ) IN the said letter, it is stated that already certain applications are rejected and those applications could not be reopened. It is hereby clarified that the casea need not to be re-opened. The orders issued in the said G.O. would therefore, the applicable to the cases pending as on 16.7.1993 and to future cases only." ( 15. ) IN the said letter, it is stated that already certain applications are rejected and those applications could not be reopened. There is no whisper in the said letter that no application could be entertained, if the Government Servant died prior to the date of issuance, of G.O. Ms. No. 155. In any event, the 1st respondent is not correct in relying on the letter dated 27.7.1994 of the Labour and Employment Department particularly, when the 1st respondent issued a clarificatory letter dated 31.12.1994, permitting the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Therefore, even assuming that the letter dated 27.7.1994 of Labour and Employment Department gave direction not to provide compassionate appointment in the case of death of Government Servant prior to the issuance of G.O., the same could not be applied, as in the instant case, the 1st respondent has already issued a direction on 31.12.1994 to entertain the application of the petitioner, when the 2nd respondent sought clarification from him. In these circumstances, I do not find any irregularity in the order of appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.4.1999 is liable to be interfered with. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if there is some irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner, the same could not be cited to terminate the services of the petitioner, after he rendered very long years of service, particularly, when there was no suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner and if there was any mistake committed by the Department, for which, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in V. Balakrishnan v. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Tiruvannamalai, and three Others, W.A. No. 1559 of 2009 dated 3.11.2009 squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the First Bench of this Court relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, (cited supra), wherein, at paragraph No. 6, it has been held as follows: "6. We have noted the submissions of both the parties. In the said judgment, the First Bench of this Court relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, (cited supra), wherein, at paragraph No. 6, it has been held as follows: "6. We have noted the submissions of both the parties. We quite see the force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. Compassionate appointment is not meant for persons who do not in fact face the difficulty. It is meant to tide over the immediate difficulty of the family. For a moment, we do not approve the manner in which he has obtained the employment. At the same time, it is also to be seen that in the instant case nearly after four years, the State Government has moved to cancel the appointment. Nothing is placed on record as to what action was taken against the officers, who are responsible for the disputed appointment and delayed action on the part of the Government. Almost similar facts were there in the two matters which have been referred herein in the sense that the persons ware sought to be removed after passing of good number of years. Besides, by now, nearly 15 years have gone since the time the appellant has been initially appointed, and therefore, we do not think that it will be fair to disturb his employment." ( 16. ) FOR all the reasons stated above, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition dismissed.