Judgment :- 1. The petitioner's father Late C.Ramasamy employed as Foreman I Grade at Kachirapalayam. While he was in service, he died due to Rabies on 26.01.2003, leaving behind his two wives and five children. Since the petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of his family, the petitioner's mother was unable to maintain his family within the meagre pension, because even the terminal benefits arising out of his father's death were sanctioned only on 07.02.2006, after a lapse of 3 years from the date of death of his father. Further, the rest of 50% of the terminal benefits was settled to his father's second wife. However, the petitioner's mother, on receipt of the 50% of the terminal benefits, had spent the entire amount by remitting the same towards the loan amount borrowed for the purpose of his father's medical treatment. Therefore, after the death of his father, though the petitioner's family received 50% of the terminal benefits, virtually nothing remains in their hands and as a result, the petitioner's family is struggling even for daily bread and to meet the day to day expenses. Therefore, an agreement was reached between the first wife and second wife. As per the agreement, all the family members of the second wife have agreed to take 50% of the terminal benefits and agreed to give 50% rest of the 50% of terminal benefits to the petitioner's family members along with right of getting compassionate appointment. On that basis, when a representation was made to the fourth respondent on 02.12.2005 requesting to provide compassionate appointment to him, as he has also passed 10th standard, but, by proceedings dated 23.08.2006, the third respondent directed the fourth respondent to conduct field enquiry and in turn, the third respondent also informed the petitioner and his family members to participate in the said enquiry and accordingly, the family members of the petitioner took part in the enquiry. Finally, on the basis of no objection certificate given by the petitioner's brother, step mother, sisters, half brother and half sisters to the Assistant Executive Engineer for providing appointment to him on compassionate ground, the fourth respondent also submitted the field enquiry report to the third respondent with a recommendation to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, by proceedings dated 16.05.2007. Thereafter, when the petitioner was waiting with a fond hope to get the compassionate appointment, the third respondent rejected his request for compassionate appointment by letter dated 27.11.2007, on the ground that he has attained the age of majority, after 3 years from the date of death of his father and further held that his application for compassionate appointment was belated one. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the third respondent, when the petitioner approached the third respondent through Union for reconsideration of the impugned order, his effort did not fetch any result, which forced the petitioner to appeal before the first respondent on 15.12.2008, requesting to consider his claim for compassionate appointment, but again there was no response. However, one more representation was also made in the month of March'2009 with a request for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondents 1 and 2 have not passed any order on his representation for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the third respondent, since the petitioner made his application on 02.12.2005, this is well within 3 years from the date of death of his father viz; 26.01.2003. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reasoning given by the third respondent in the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner has filed the application at a belated stage, is illegal and unsustainable, for the reason that the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, passed by the respondents Board states that any person seeking compassionate appointment on the death of the breadwinner in his family, should file an application within three years from the date of death of his father/mother. Therefore, in view of the above said proceedings, he contended that the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner. Secondly, he contended that the fourth respondent has conducted the filed enquiry only on 17.04.2007 and at that time, the petitioner has attained the age of 18 years. Therefore, in view of the above said proceedings, he contended that the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner. Secondly, he contended that the fourth respondent has conducted the filed enquiry only on 17.04.2007 and at that time, the petitioner has attained the age of 18 years. Thereafter, when the fourth respondent submitted the filed enquiry on 16.05.2007 with a recommendation to consider the request of the petitioner, the third respondent, without looking into the report of the fourth respondent, erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, on the ground that the petitioner has attained majority, namely, 18 years, only after the three years from the date of death of his father. Therefore, he contended, that the impugned order passed by the third respondent is wholly misconceived. 3. In an effort to support the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has submitted his application on 02.12.2005 and at that time, he has not attained the age of 18 years. Therefore, when the petitioner was not major, namely, 18 years, on the date of submitting his application on 02.12.2005 and he admittedly became major only on 06.02.2006, which is beyond 3 years, as contemplated by the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected and therefore, such rejection cannot be interfered with by this Court and on that basis, he pleaded for dismissal of the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. Admittedly, the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, was introduced with a modification of existing scheme providing employment assistance to the dependants of the deceased employee of the Board on the following three conditions:- i. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the date of death of employees of the Board. ii. 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. iii. In the case of already expired staff while in service, the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order. As per the above conditions, the petitioner should have made an application within three years from the date of death of his father. iii. In the case of already expired staff while in service, the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order. As per the above conditions, the petitioner should have made an application within three years from the date of death of his father. Admittedly, the petitioner's father died due to Rabies on 26.01.2003 and thereafter, the petitioner has made his representation on 02.12.2005, which is well within three years from the date of death of his father. Therefore, the petitioner's application dated 02.12.2005 is rightly fulfilling the first condition mentioned in Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995. Yet another vital aspect is that firstly, one should have requisite age qualification as well as educational qualification. Though the petitioner submitted his application on 02.12.2005, the fourth respondent conducted the field enquiry only on 17.04.2007 and by that time, the petitioner has attained the age of majority, namely, 18 years. Therefore, the fourth respondent, who was directed by the third respondent to conduct the filed enquiry, accepting the indigenous circumstances of the family, accepted the request of the petitioner and recommended to the third respondent to consider his request for providing compassionate appointment. Therefore, when the fourth respondent submitted his report on 16.05.2007, the petitioner has not only attained the age of 18 years, but also possessed the requisite educational qualification, namely, 10th standard pass. Therefore, the question of delay in making the application will not arise. 6. In this regard, it is useful to a ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Superintending Engineer, Madurai, Vs. V.Jaya reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , which is extracted as under:- "In a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependent of an employee/government servant dying in harness, in preference to anybody else. The concept of compassionate appoint is intended to alleviate the distress of the family. Any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. The concept of compassionate appoint is intended to alleviate the distress of the family. Any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. While considering the request for appointment on compassionate ground, the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities." As per the above ratio, when I look at the concept of compassionate appointment, it is intended to alleviate the distress of the family. Whileso, the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness, in preference to anybody else. Any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that while considering the request for appointment on compassionate ground, the authorities are also expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 7. With this background, having regard to the above said facts of the case as well as the undisputed facts regarding the claim of the petitioner made on 02.12.2005, which is well within three years time as per the Board Proceeding No.46, dated 13.10.1995, I find that the third respondent had failed to adopt the Good Samaritan approach as held by the learned Division Bench of this Court mentioned above, hence, the respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order. 8. For all the above reasons, while quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the third respondent, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for a suitable post in their Electricity Board, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the present writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. No Costs.