JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 08.11.2011 by the second respondent and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father, who was working as Firka Surveyor in Survey and Land Records Department in Kanchipuram District, died on 18.09.2003 leaving behind his wife and 3 daughters. The petitioner’s mother submitted applications on 21.03.2004 and 05.08.2004, seeking compassionate employment for her second daughter, namely, Vinodhini. Thereafter, she sent another application on 09.09.2005 stating that her second daughter had got to be married and requested to give appointment to her third daughter, namely, Preethi, who is the petitioner herein. 3. The respondents sought for production of the documentary evidences, vide their letters dated 22.09.2005 and 04.04.2007. Prior to that, by the proceedings dated 30.04.2004, the petitioner’s mother was informed that there was a ban on recruitment, and she can renew the claim for compassionate appointment as and when the ban stands lifted. The petitioner’s mother also submitted an application on 04.10.2011 to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. While this being the situation, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on 08.11.2011 on the ground that she had not completed 18 years on the date of submission of application on 09.09.2005. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Government Letter No.66813/Q1/91-3, Labour & Employment Department, dated 22.11.1991, clarified that there is no bar in appointing a candidate on compassionate ground, who is below the age of 18 years. By G.O.(Rt) No.120, Employment and Training dated 26.06.1995, the Government imposed a condition that the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made, within three years from the date of death of the deceased Government servant. And in G.O.(Rt)No.112, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 23.08.2005, it is stated that the minimum age limit has been fixed as 18 years for entry into Government service. And in G.O.(Rt)No.112, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 23.08.2005, it is stated that the minimum age limit has been fixed as 18 years for entry into Government service. Referring to the above Government Orders, it is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s application was rejected by the second respondent on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the prescribed age limit of 18 years on the date of submission of application on 09.09.2005 and that there was a ban on filling up of the vacant posts for the period from 29.11.2001 to 21.02.2006. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 6. Narrating the factual matrix supported by the documents produced for the consideration of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is of non-application of mind and the respondent, who received the relevant materials produced, miserably failed to consider that the petitioner had satisfied the eligibility criteria and therefore the impugned order of rejection is without any basis. The learned counsel further submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner was on 09.09.2005, which is well within three years from the date of death of her father on 18.09.2003, and the petitioner had completed 18 years of age at the time of consideration of her application for appointment. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents had lost sight on the repeated correspondences and clarifications made by them and the petitioner satisfied the required eligibility criteria as per the Scheme on the date of issuance of the impugned order and hence the respondents have caused injustice to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected on the basis of the Government instructions and the petitioner's ineligibility was due to non-fulfilling the required eligibility criteria. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made. It is to be decided whether the application submitted by the petitioner’s mother and the subsequent application by the petitioner are well within time and the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as per the Scheme. 9. The submission of applications dated 05.08.2004 and 09.09.2005 by the petitioner’s mother periodically to the respondents is not in dispute. It is to be decided whether the application submitted by the petitioner’s mother and the subsequent application by the petitioner are well within time and the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as per the Scheme. 9. The submission of applications dated 05.08.2004 and 09.09.2005 by the petitioner’s mother periodically to the respondents is not in dispute. The petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of her father and the mother of the petitioner applied well within time seeking appointment to the petitioner. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner produced the required Certificates for their satisfaction complying the conditions for appointment on compassionate ground. The family background as well as the continued sufferings of the petitioner’s family are also evidenced from the records produced. Moreover the petitioner had completed 18 years at the time of rejection of her application on 08.11.2011 and hence the respondents have no justifiable reasons to disentitle the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10. Similar issue with regard to the appointment on compassionate ground was well considered by His Lordship Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar in the case of J.JEBA MARY vs. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS reported in[ 2011 (3) LLN 405 ]. Referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court, the learned Judge held in paragraphs 12 to 15 as follows: "12. (a) Similar issue as to whether an application seeking compassionate appointment can be rejected on the ground that the application was not submitted within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and whether completion of 18 years within three years, is a mandatory requirement when earlier application submitted by other claimant is kept pending, was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2004 (3) CTC 120 (T.Meer Ismail Ali v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board) (F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah,J (as he then was)). In the said case the deceased board employee died on 13.4.1993 and the application submitted by one of his daughter on 5.8.1997 was rejected on the ground that she had not completed 18 years of age and after completing 18 years of age when an application was made on 4.7.2000 which was rejected on the ground that the application was not made within three years from the date when the Board Proceedings dated 13.10.1995 was issued. This Court considering the technical plea raised by the respondent Board set aside the said order and remitted the matter to pass fresh orders without reference to the objections already raised by the Board. The said order of the learned single Judge was challenged by the TNEB in W.A.No.4008 of 2004 before the First Bench of this Court (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Markandey Katju,C.J. (as he then was) and N.V.Balasubramanian,J.) dismissed the writ appeal on 1.12.2004. The respondents herein filed SLP No.6387 of 2005 against the said order which was also dismissed on 1.4.2005 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently the said writ petitioner was given compassionate appointment. (b) Another writ petition in W.P.No.41459 of 2005 was considered by me on the same set of facts. The said writ petition was allowed following the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.4008 of 2004 dated 1.12.2004 and the said decision is reported in (2006) 2 MLJ 200 (Selvi R.Anbarasi v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai). The said order was challenged by the TNEB before the First Bench in W.A.No.988 of 2006. However, the said petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground by implementing the order and therefore the writ appeal was dismissed as in fructuous on 15.9.2006 by recording the statement made by the Standing Counsel for the TNEB. (c) In W.P.No.21512 of 2003 one Indiraniammal challenged the rejection of compassionate appointment on similar ground. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 4.8.2003 against which the petitioner therein filed W.A.No.3050 of 2003 and the said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam (as he then was) & S.K.Krishnan,J) by order dated 8.3.2005 following the earlier judgments as well as the Supreme Court Judgment reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 (Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd). Against the said decision Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 was filed by the respondent Board herein which was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 30.3.2010. Against the said decision Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 was filed by the respondent Board herein which was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 30.3.2010. (d) Dismissal of another W.P.No.775 of 2004 by order dated 29.1.2005 on the ground of delay was considered by the Division Bench (F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah,J. (as he then was) & P.Murugesan,J) in W.A(MD).No.29 of 2006 and by order dated 27.6.2006 the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and directed to give compassionate appointment to the younger son of the deceased Board employee, who died on 15.11.1996. The said order of the Division Bench was also challenged by the Board in SLP(C)No.15534 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.4.2009. (e) Three writ petitions were disposed of by me i.e., W.P.Nos.19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order dated 24.7.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the above three writ petitions, which were allowed, writ appeal was filed against one writ petition in W.A.No.1206 of 2006 while implementing the order in respect of other two cases. The said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 29.9.2006. The respondent in the writ appeal viz., J.Karthick filed review application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 25.8.2008. Against the dismissal of the writ appeal as well as rejection of review application, the said J.Karthick filed SLP(C) No.2004-2005/2009 and on 23.2.2009 the SLPs were tagged along with Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 viz., Indiraniammal case. Subsequently the said SLP was numbered as Civil Case Nos.5068-5069 of 2009 which was allowed on 30.3.2010 and the said order reads as follows: "Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed in the review application. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. No costs." (Emphasis Supplied) From the perusal of the above order it is evident that the order passed by the Division Bench in writ appeal and in the review petition were set aside and the order of the single Judge dated 29.9.2006 was restored. (f) In W.P.No.18575 of 2006 I had an occasion to consider similar issue and allowed the writ petition on 20.6.2006 by following earlier orders. The said order was also challenged by the respondent in W.A.No.42 of 2007 and the Division Bench (D.Murugesan,J & K.Venkataraman, J) dismissed the writ appeal on 2.7.2009. The Board filed SLP(C)No.8305 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 6.7.2010. The said candidate viz., P.Venkatesan was given compassionate appointment by order dated 18.8.2010. (g) Again similar matter was considered by me in W.P.No.29059 of 2003 and relief granted by order dated 7.7.2006, against which also the Board filed W.A.No.1652 of 2006. The said writ appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (D.Murugesan,J. & S.Nagamuthu,J.) on 30.3.2009. (h) W.P(MD).No.1335 of 2006 was disposed of by me on 10.8.2006. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran (as he then was) & P.R.Shivakumar,J.) in W.A.No.309 of 2007 on 8.8.2007 and the same is reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 (Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V.Jaya) and the said candidate viz., V.Jaya was given appointment order. (i) Similar matter was again considered by me in W.P.No.4050 of 2006 and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 29.6.2010 following the orders of the Division Bench and Supreme Court and the said judgment is reported in (2010) 7 MLJ 644 (M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai). No appeal is filed against the said order. 13. (i) Similar matter was again considered by me in W.P.No.4050 of 2006 and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 29.6.2010 following the orders of the Division Bench and Supreme Court and the said judgment is reported in (2010) 7 MLJ 644 (M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai). No appeal is filed against the said order. 13. From the above referred decisions passed by this Court in series of cases on the same ground, it is evident that the similar grounds raised by the respondents that the petitioner has not filed application seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of her father and that she has not completed 18 years of age within three years are not valid grounds to deny appointment on compassionate ground as no one in her family is employed and the family of the petitioner is in indigent circumstance even today as certified by the Revenue Officials. Petitioner's mother and petitioner are prosecuting the matter before the respondents right from July, 1992. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24 (Maharaj Krishnan Bhatt v. State of Jammu and Kashmir) for the proposition that once a judgment had attained finality on a particular/similar issue, it could not be termed as wrong and its benefit ought to be extended to other similarly placed persons. Citing the said judgment the learned counsel contended that the earlier orders passed by this Court granting relief to similarly placed persons confirmed upto the Supreme Court and the said orders having been implemented by the Board, the petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter of giving compassionate appointment as she is also similarly placed. In the said decision in paragraphs 19, 20 and 23 the Supreme Court held thus, "19. ..... once a similar case of Abdul Rashid Rather came up for consideration before a Single Judge and his writ petition was allowed, a direction was issued to the authorities to appoint him as PSI by granting consequential benefits, the learned Single Judge could not be said to have committed any error of law in following the said decision, in allowing the writ petition filed by the present appellant writ petitioners and in issuing similar directions to the State authorities. This was particularly true because the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench and even by this Court inasmuch as special leave petition was also dismissed. 20. In our considered opinion, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the Government ought to have accepted and respected the decision of the learned single Judge without filing intra-court appeal. No distinguishing feature had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, nor the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge holding or observing that though Abdul Rashid Rather was granted the benefit and the learned Single Judge ordered extension of those benefits to the writ petitioners, they were not entitled because the case of Abdul Rashid Rather was different. Even before us, nothing special or extraordinary fact or circumstance was shown to distinguish the case of Abdul Rashid Rather and of the present appellants. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was wholly justified in allowing the writ petition and the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the said decision. 21. .................. 22. .................. 23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality, the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. It, however, challenged the order passed by the single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order, therefore, deserves to be restored." The said Judgment of the Supreme Court was followed by the Division Bench of this Court (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya & V.Dhanapalan,J.) in W.A.(MD)Nos.64 & 111 to 126 of 2007, Judgment dated 14.11.2008. In paragraphs 28 and 29 the Division Bench held thus: "28. The said order, therefore, deserves to be restored." The said Judgment of the Supreme Court was followed by the Division Bench of this Court (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya & V.Dhanapalan,J.) in W.A.(MD)Nos.64 & 111 to 126 of 2007, Judgment dated 14.11.2008. In paragraphs 28 and 29 the Division Bench held thus: "28. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Maharaj Krishnan Bhatt and Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 24, the issue regarding the extension of benefit to similarly situated persons was dealt with and though the proposition of law was accepted that wrong decision in one case could not be extended to others, on facts, it was held that once a judgment had attained finality, it could not be termed as wrong and its benefit should be extended to other similarly situated persons. 29. The above decision of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in this case, Mamundiraj and others, who were similarly placed like that of the workmen, were given permanent status by the management, but it was not done in the case of the workmen herein, thereby violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 15. The issue i.e., to consider similarly placed persons equally if the issue is identical was considered by me in the decision reported in 2006 WLR 327 : (2006) 2 MLJ 572 (N.S.Balasubramanian v. Food Corporation of India, New Delhi). Paragraphs 16 and 17 reads as follows: 16.(a) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 3588 (K.C.Sharma v. Union of India), wherein in para 6 it is held as under, "6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A.No.774 of 1994 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A.No.774 of 1994 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellant would be entitled to the same relief in the matter of pension as has been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A.Nos.395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs." (b) In another decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reported in (2003) 12 SCC 192 (State of Karnataka and others v. N.Parameshwarappa and others) in paragraphs 8 and 9 the Supreme Court held as under, "8. ...we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the Court. We are in equal agreement with the Division Bench in denying the payment of interest at compounded rates which, in our view, cannot be justified at all on the facts and circumstances of the case wherein a serious and genuine doubt existed about the applicability of the government order dated 30.3.1990, as raised in the proceedings. 9. For all the reasons stated above, the appeals filed both by the State as well as by the private respondent teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration to extend the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the Court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs." (c) In yet another decision reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 788 (Govind Ram Purohit and another v. Jagjiwan Chandra and others), in para 3 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: "3. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that whereas the petition had been filed by only Respondent 1, the High Court while finally concluding the matter has given a direction to promote all those who were senior to the appellants even though they were not parties to the petition. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should entertain such a technical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned. "From the analysis of the judgments cited above, it is beyond doubt and clear that once the point is decided in favour of a group of persons, there is no further point in waiting for each and every person to file petition and pray for the same relief. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment is equally applicable to similarly placed persons to do complete and substantial justice. 17. The Law Department as well as the Finance Department of the respondents/Corporation considered the similarity of the issue involved and recommended to the respondents to pay the recovered amount to the petitioners as well. Hence the denial of the said benefit to the petitioners is unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Advocate General reported in AIR 1996 SC 2890 (State of Karnataka v. G.Halappa) and AIR 2002 SC 2427 (State of Karnataka v. G.Halappa) have no application to the facts of this case because of the submission that Circular No.13 dated 9.7.1997 was wrongly applied by the respondents while stepping up of the pay. The said contention was raised before the Kerala High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was not accepted. Hence it is not open to the respondents to raise the said plea in this writ petition as they were parties to the proceedings before the Kerala High Court. The said decision is confirmed in W.A.No.956 of 2006 by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 30.10.2006. SLP(C)No.677 of 2007 filed against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.4.2007." 11. The said decision is confirmed in W.A.No.956 of 2006 by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 30.10.2006. SLP(C)No.677 of 2007 filed against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.4.2007." 11. Applying the above referred judgments to the facts of this case, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 08.11.2011 denying the claim of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is set aside, with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass fresh orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without any other reference or objections raised in the impugned order. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.