Judgment : 1. The father of the petitioner was a Draughtsman, working under the first respondent. He died in harness in the year 2006, leaving behind his two daughters and his wife. On 04.07.2008, the younger sister, namely, the petitioner had sought an employment on compassionate grounds, after getting relinquishment from her mother and her elder sister. The respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner citing a letter(Nillai) No.86 Q-1/10 (Labour and Employment Department) dated 04.05.2010 stating that the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years, at the time of making application. On the ground only, the impugned order dated 24.12.2010 is also passed. Against which, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the family of the petitioner has been living in indigent circumstances. At the time of the death of her father, the daughters were studying 10th Std and 12th Std respectively. However, after attaining majority, the younger daughter prudently had submitted her application within three years of her father's death. 3. In the counter affidavit, citing various G.Os, the respondent has reiterated the stand that at the time of considering her candidature, she was underaged and therefore, she could not be considered for any post under compassionate grounds. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents reiterates the stand averred in the counter and submit that she is not entitled for the relief sought for, and therefore, sought the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attain the prescribed age at the time of death of her father. As a precautionary measure, the petitioner had made an application for getting compassionate appointment wayback in the year 04.07.2008. She only crossed 18 years of age in year 2009. The impugned order came to be passed in the year 2010 on the ground that she was underaged. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the application within three years not only from the date of attaining majority, but also, within two years, after the death of her father. The impugned order came to be passed in the year 2010 on the ground that she was underaged. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the application within three years not only from the date of attaining majority, but also, within two years, after the death of her father. As far as this Court is concerned, the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for the simple reason that time and again this Court held that the limitation logic for a minor child can be applied from the date of his/her majority, since the object of providing employment to the family of the employee, who died in harness, must be treated with compassion and mercy. 6. This Court, in S.Nagarajan Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 002, [W.P (MD)No.15658 of 2012, dated04.04.2014], on a careful consideration of the decisions of this Court, in Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V.Jaya reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , J.Jeba Mary v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2011 (3) LLN 405 (Mad.), and P.Sathiaraman v. Secretary to Government reported in (2013) 8 MLJ 190 , has held as follows:- "18. The above Judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the widow of the deceased has submitted the application within time and the application seeking appointment for the petitioner was submitted within 3 years after attaining majority. Nothing is brought before this Court to show that the family is not in indigent circumstances and this Court is of the opinion that the widow of the deceased must have appointed on compassionate grounds in some job based on her qualification. This Court is also of the view that when a person cannot be employed in government services before the completion of 18 years, he could not make an application seeking appointment during his period of minority. Therefore the period of three years for a minor son/daughter can commence only after he/she attains majority. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the application made on behalf of the son cannot be treated as time barred. 19. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 31.01.2011 is set aside. Therefore the period of three years for a minor son/daughter can commence only after he/she attains majority. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the application made on behalf of the son cannot be treated as time barred. 19. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 31.01.2011 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to produce a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that his family is in indigent circumstance as on today, within four weeks and submit the same before second respondent and on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall pass order appointing the petitioner in any suitable post within two weeks therefrom." 7. Following the said decisions, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground 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. No costs.