JUDGMENT :- The petitioner has stated that his father P.Nagan had died, on 22.5.2002, while he was employed under the respondent Board. Since, the family of the petitioner was in indigent circumstances, he had requested the management of the respondent Board for appointment on compassionate grounds. In spite of the several representations made by the petitioner, and even after he had produced all the necessary documents, the first respondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 2.9.2006, rejecting the request of the petitioner, stating that he should have applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds, within three years from the date of the death of his father. It had also been stated that the petitioner should not be over 35 years of age. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 35 years only for the reason that there was a ban on recruitment, as per the relevant government order. After the ban imposed by the Government had been relaxed and as the upper age limit had also been increased by way of the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.91, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 6.7.2006, and G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 17.7.2006, the petitioner had become eligible for being appointed on compassionate grounds. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it had been stated that the State Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.6.1995, stating that all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the death of the Government servant. Further, the State Government, in G.O.Ms.No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 19.1.1998, had issued orders fixing the age limit of 35 years for the legal heirs of the government servants, for being appointed on compassionate grounds. It had also been stated that the petitioner's application was not accompanied by the nomination letter of the wife of the deceased employee. 4. It had also been stated that the petitioner's application was not accompanied by the nomination letter of the wife of the deceased employee. 4. It had also been stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu, in its order No.98, P & AR(S) Department, dated 17.7.2006, had issued orders stating that the upper age limit for entering into government service shall be relaxed by five years, from the thirty years of age limit fixed earlier, to enable unemployed youth, who had been affected by the ban order issued, in respect of the recruitments to government jobs. The age concession would apply only to those, who were to be appointed in the government jobs, by direct recruitment and not for those, who were to be given appointments on compassionate grounds. 5. It had also been stated that the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment (Q), Department, dated 12.3.2007, had extended the period for receiving the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, by three months. However, the petitioner had not applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds, even during the extended period. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the Government Orders cited above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in submitting his application for being appointed on compassionate grounds. In the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.120, Labour and employment Department, dated 26.6.1995, it has been clearly stated that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be submitted, within three years from the date of the death of the government servant. The petitioner had submitted his application, only on 7.8.2006, after nearly four years from the date of the death of his father. Therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner for not submitting his application, within the time limit prescribed by the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment department, dated 26.6.1995, cannot be accepted, as there was no bar on the receipt of such applications. Therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner for not submitting his application, within the time limit prescribed by the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment department, dated 26.6.1995, cannot be accepted, as there was no bar on the receipt of such applications. In fact, more than 100 applications had been registered by the respondent Board during the ban period, from 29.11.2001 to 21.2.2006. Further, nothing had been shown by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that his family was in indigent circumstances at the time of the submission of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 35 years fixed by the state government, in G.O.Ms.No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 19.1.1998, for the legal heirs of the government servants, who had died in harness, for being appointed on compassionate grounds. 8. It is a well settled position in law that compassionate appointments are made only to help the family, which is in indigent circumstances, due to the sudden death of the breadwinner, while in harness. Such appointments are made only with the object of helping the family in distress, following the death of the government servant. Since, such appointments are an exception to the general rules of recruitment, such appointments have to be made only in strict compliance of the guidelines and the rules applicable to such appointments. 9. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointment on compassionate grounds: 5.1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh ( 2007 (4) SCC 778 ), the Supreme Court had held that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner, providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees who had died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. The claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. The claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of a scheme or instructions, as the case may be. 5.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi ( 2007(6) SCC 162 ), the Supreme Court had held that compassionate appointment must be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5.3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs. M.T.Latheesh ( 2006(7) SCC 350 ), the Supreme Court had held that grant of employment on compassionate grounds in all cases, would shut the door for employment to the increasing number of unemployed youth. 5.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd., and others ( 2007(8) SCC 549 ), the Supreme Court had recognised the fact that appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 5.5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur ( 2007(9) SCC 571 ), the Supreme Court had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. The discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the scheme and the object and the rationale behind it. However, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5.6. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad and others Vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum ( 2008 (3) SCC 402 ) the Supreme Court, quoting with approval the decision made in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana ( 1994 (4) SCC 138 ), had held that it has been time and again held that compassionate appointments would be given to the dependants of the deceased who had died in harness, to get over the difficulties on the death of the bread earner and that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5.7. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. 5.7. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court ( 2008 (3) CTC 785 ), a Division Bench of this Court had held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family of the Government servant who had died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. 10. On analysing the contentions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. In such circumstances, there is no substance or merit in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. As such, there are no reasons for this Court to hold that the impugned order of the respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for such appointment, is bad in the eye of law. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.