Judgment : 1. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as Sanitary Worker, on 11.11.1987 in the Health Department of Kumbakonam Municipality. On 25.12.2008, her husband died in harness, leaving behind the petitioner, three sons and two daughters, as his legal heirs. Seeking employment on compassionate ground, the petitioner submitted an application, on 25.12.2008. The claim of the petitioner was rejected, by proceedings, dated 16.09.2010, on the ground that the services of the deceased employee were not regularized during his lifetime. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioner is now before this Court with the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of a similarly placed deceased employee, like that of the husband of the petitioner herein, were not regularized during his lifetime, and therefore, her claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. Challenging the same, one S.Jothilakshmi approached this Court, by filing W.P.[MD].No.3045 of 2008. This Court, by order, dated 07.08.2009, quashed the order of rejection and directed the respondents therein to give appointment to the petitioner therein on compassionate ground. 3. The learned counsel further submits that questioning the correctness of the said order, W.A. [MD].No.558 of 2009 came to be filed by the respondents therein. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment, dated 09.11.2009, while dismissing the Writ Petition, dated 07.08.2009, held that the first respondent therein was entitled to appointment, as directed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order of rejection passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that as the service of the deceased employee was not regularized, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. The fact that the husband of the petitioner served as Sanitary Worker is not in dispute. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the services of the petitioner were not regularized during his lifetime. When the claim of a similarly placed person, like that of the petitioner herein was not considered, she approached this Court by filing W.P.[MD].No.3045 of 2008. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the services of the petitioner were not regularized during his lifetime. When the claim of a similarly placed person, like that of the petitioner herein was not considered, she approached this Court by filing W.P.[MD].No.3045 of 2008. This Court, by order, dated 07.08.2009, quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents therein to give appointment to the petitioner therein on compassionate ground, which was challenged by the respondents by filing W.A.[MD].No.558 of 2009. The Division Bench, by Judgment, dated 09.11.2009, while dismissing the said Writ Petition, held in the following manner:- "As far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is true that there is no scheme in the appellant Society for providing compassionate appointments. Nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that such appointments are being made in deserving cases. Therefore, merely because there is no scheme available, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be denied. As far as the impugned order in the Writ Petition rejecting the request for compassionate appointment is concerned, the Society has rejected the request wholly on the ground that the deceased husband of the first respondent was not regularised. In our opinion, having regard to the fact that the deceased employee had put in 15 years of service and in the absence of any scheme stipulating conditions as to consideration of compassionate appointment to the dependants of a regular employee, whether such employee has been made permanent or yet to be made permanent would be highly too technical to reject the application for appointment on compassionate ground. That apart, factually the name of the deceased employee was recommended by the Special Officer of the Society in his proceedings dated 29.03.1996 for regularisation along with similarly placed persons. However, before such recommendation was given effect to, unfortunately, the employee died on 15.11.1996. From the records it is also seen that within a period of 14 days, i.e. On 29.11.1996, the all other persons numbering 14 and whose names were also recommended along with the deceased employee were regularised. The deceased employee could not be regularised as by that time he was not alive. Had he been alive, he would have also been regularised in service. The deceased employee could not be regularised as by that time he was not alive. Had he been alive, he would have also been regularised in service. In view of that, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not regularised and therefore the first respondent cannot seek for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. 7. As far as the further contention is concerned, it is not as if that the said first respondent should be accommodated in the same post, where the deceased employee was employed. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it is an exception to the general rule of appointment. Nevertheless, when the provision for such appointment is extended to the dependants of other employee, the right of the first respondent to make an application for consideration has to be accepted. In that event, such application should be considered with reference to the availability of post to which the applicant is otherwise eligible. The only reason for rejecting the appointment is that the deceased was not a regular employee. Inasmuch as we have rejected the said contention, the first respondent is entitled to the appointment as directed by the learned single Judge, of course, to a suitable post which is available in the Society." 7. Applying the said Judgment to the facts of the present case, the impugned order, dated 16.09.2010, passed by the first respondent is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.