Judgment : 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 12.08.2009 and consequently direct the respondents to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground forthwith. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the son of one Kondappan, who died on 19.01.1997. The said Kondappan, on the date of his death, was working as a Casual Labourer. By G.O.Ms.No.392, Public Works Department dated 19.06.1998, the services of the said Kondappan/petitioner's father have been regularised as Mazdoor in the scale of pay of Rs.750-Rs.945 with effect from 01.07.1995 and his name also appeared in Sl.No.90, thereby entitling him for all the benefits as a regular employee. The petitioner, on the demise of his father, submitted an application dated Nil, August 1998, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, which was duly forwarded to the competent authority, to take steps to consider his case for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's mother, Mrs.Vasantha, wife of late Kondappan, submitted no objection certificate as desired by the respondents, for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that there was a ban for recruitment in relation to appointment on compassionate grounds between 2002 and 2006 and hence his claim was kept pending. However, on 12.08.2009, by the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his father was a casual labourer and that compassionate ground appointment cannot be granted to a Government servant, who was casual or adhoc or temporary. This made the writ petitioner to file this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner's father have been regularised by G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 19.06.1998 with effect from 01.07.1995 and hence once the petitioner's father became a permanent employee, the benefits accrued in terms of the G.O., cannot be deprived to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner's father have been regularised by G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 19.06.1998 with effect from 01.07.1995 and hence once the petitioner's father became a permanent employee, the benefits accrued in terms of the G.O., cannot be deprived to the petitioner. Further, in the impugned order, a reference has been made to G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment Department dated 12.03.2007, wherein, though as per clause 2(7), the claims of the dependants of the regular Government servant alone would be considered for compassionate appointment be applied to the case on hand, the other part of the said guidelines in so far as clause 2(7) is concerned, that the said benefits is not extended to the dependants of the deceased, who was a casual or adhoc or temporary Government servant, cannot be applied to the case on hand, since the services of the petitioner's father has got regularized retrospectively. However, the Government has rejected the claim without realising the said fact. Further, the application for compassionate ground appointment has been made within the time. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, relying on the counter affidavit contended that the petitioner's father died on 19.01.1997 and at the time of death, he was only a casual labourer. There was no G.O. similar to the one of G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 19.06.1998 on the date of the death of the petitioner's father and hence the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Further, he contended that the Court will have to decide as to whether on the date of death of Kondappan/petitioner's father, whether he was a regular employee or a permanent employee or a casual labourer, dehors G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 19.06.1998. He further contended that G.O. will not confer any benefit to the family members of the deceased except monetary benefits. Further, relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there was a ban between 2002 and 2006 and hence the petitioner's claim could not be considered. He further reiterated that only the children/dependants of the regular employee alone are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and not that of the dependants of persons like petitioner's father are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. He further reiterated that only the children/dependants of the regular employee alone are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and not that of the dependants of persons like petitioner's father are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father died on 19.01.1997 and on that date, he was a casual labourer. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to G.O.Ms.No.392, Public Works Department dated 19.06.1998, the relevant portions of which, are extracted below: "3. ........The Government also direct that the services of 226 (two hundred and twenty six) unqualified Nomina Muster Roll Employees as detailed in the Annexure II to this order be regularised and brought into regular establishment with effect from the dates noted against them in column 6. The incumbents are eligible for fixation of pay from the date of their regularisation but the monetary benefits will be given with effect from the date of issue of this order only. Annexure II List of unqualified Nominal Muster Rolls brought into regular establishment in relaxation of rules. Sl.No. Name Category in which to be regularized Scale of pay Relaxation of Rules Date of regularization 90 Kondappan Mazdoor 750-915 6(1)(b) 01.07.95 From a perusal of the above extracted portion of the said G.O., it is clear that the services of the petitioner's father were regularised with effect from 01.07.1995 and admittedly his name was found in G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 19.06.1998 at Sl.No.90 and he was regularised as Mazdoor. The services of the petitioner's father were regularised, as he has completed 10 years of service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had made an application for compassionate ground appointment on 30.08.1998 and his application has been forwarded by the competent authority and necessary no objection certificate has been given by the petitioner's mother. However, by the impugned order dated 12.08.2009, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, after a decade. 7. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42 (Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 12.03.2009, the relevant portions of which, are extracted below:- "2.2 Appointments on compassionate grounds are being given to the dependant of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. The existing guidelines with regard to dependants shall be continued. …….. 7. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42 (Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 12.03.2009, the relevant portions of which, are extracted below:- "2.2 Appointments on compassionate grounds are being given to the dependant of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. The existing guidelines with regard to dependants shall be continued. …….. 2.7 Dependants of only regular Government servants who died in harness shall be given appointment of compassionate grounds. No appointment on compassionate grounds shall be given to dependants of casual or adhoc or temporary Government servants appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules". the dependants of only Regular Government Servants, who died in harness, shall be given compassionate ground appointment, may be correct, but that will not be applicable to the facts of this case. The petitioner became eligible on the date of application immediately after the demise of his father. The claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the dependants of only regular Government servants who died in harness shall be given appointment on compassionate grounds and no appointment on compassionate grounds shall be given to the dependants of causal or adhoc or temporary Government servants who are appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. This alone has got to be tested in this case. 8. The question as to whether there was a ban between 2002 and 2006 need not be gone into, as that was not the reason for rejecting the petitioner's claim. Even otherwise after the lifting of ban, the Government should have considered the petitioner's case. Since by G.O.Ms.No.392, Public Works (C2) Department dated 19.06.1998, the services of the petitioner's father have been regularised as Mazdoor on permanent basis with effect from 01.07.1995, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of compassionate appointment, if he is otherwise eligible. 9. The arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader that on the date of death of Kondappan/petitioner's father, he was a casual labourer and hence the Government Order, giving retrospective regularisation, cannot be made applicable to him, cannot be accepted at all, as it will not only amount to giving narrow interpretation, but also runs counter to the purpose for which the G.O. was issued. 10. 10. Further, the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the benefit of compassionate ground appointment should not be extended and it should be deprived to the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. If such an interpretation is given by me, it would be noting but an inhumane approach. 11. As regards G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 12.03.2007 relied upon by the learned Additional Government pleader is concerned, it will not support his case, as the deceased had attained permanent status with effect from 1.7.1995. Therefore, the argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader that only the monetary benefits can be extended to the petitioner and not the benefit of compassionate appointment and consequently the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered, cannot be accepted at all. The petitioner was eligible on the date of application immediately on the demise of his father. If the employee attains permanent status, the consequential benefits will have to flow to the dependants, as if during the life time of the employee, benefits of permanent status have been actually conferred. 12. Further, the Madurai Bench of this Court in a decision rendered in W.P.(MD)No.11161 of 2009 dated 25.3.2010 (R.Usha Rani vs. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department) , has held as follows:- "3. On the factual situation as narrated above, even though it is true that the Government, considering all Nominal Muster Roll employees in the Public Works Department, has passed orders on 19.10.2007 regularizing their services, as it is seen in the Government Order and the Annexure contained therein, especially relating to the petitioner's husband, the regularization has been given effect to from 01.01.1998, the date when the petitioner's husband was very much alive and, therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that at the time of passing of the Government Order, the petitioner's husband has already passed away six years ago and, therefore, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be taken into consideration is not tenable. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not made application for compassionate appointment within the time stipulated. It is also relevant to take note at this point that between 2001 and 2006, there has been ban on recruitment and in fact, the Government itself, considering the said facts only, has passed orders of regularization after the ban was lifted in the year 2007. 4. It is also relevant to take note at this point that between 2001 and 2006, there has been ban on recruitment and in fact, the Government itself, considering the said facts only, has passed orders of regularization after the ban was lifted in the year 2007. 4. As far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the same Public Works Department, this Court has considered few cases including the one in W.P.No.8649 of 2008, wherein, by an order dated 22.10.2009, under similar circumstances, a direction was issued that in respectg of a person, who has completed ten years of service and died in harness, is entitled for the family pension to be given to the legal heirs by relying upon the judgement in S.Vijayalakshmi v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board reported in 2006 W.L.R. 91. In the said Judgment, the Principal Bench of this Court has held that when once the deceased employee acquires permanent status, the consequential benefits due to the family members cannot be denied. This Court has also made a reference to Rule 49(2-A) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, to enable the family members to have the family pension, apart from death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as contemplated under Rule 45(b). The Principal Bench of this Court, in S.Vijayalakshmi's case cited supra, has held as follows:- "5. Once it is held that the deceased employee was in law entitled to the benefit of acquisition of permanent status, any consequential benefits cannot be denied to the widow on death of such person or merely because during the life time of the employee on such permanency had been ''actually conferred". 13. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 , has held as follows:- "20. Thus while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules of regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts." In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the case of the appellant by holding that testing on the touchstone of these broad guidelines governing appointment on compassionate ground, it was of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for such appointment. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the application for compassionate ground appointment was made within the time limit. The spirit of the compassionate appointment was to provide relief to the family members of the deceased persons. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I feel that the writ petitioner has got to be allowed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed the impugned order dated 12.08.2009 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate ground appointment in the next vacancy arising in Class III/IV, and provide compassionate appointment to him, if he is otherwise eligible and if there are no other legal impediments. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court hopes that without any further technical objection, the claim of the petitioner is considered and the respondents do social justice to the deceased family. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.