Judgment 1. The petitioner's father was working as a contract labourer under various contractors for doing the work of the respondents from 1982 onwards. By the Board's proceedings No.44 dated 6.9.2007, scores of contract labourers have been appointed as temporary casual labourers with effect from 1.12.2007 for a period of one year and thereafter they were supposed to be absorbed as Mazdoors in the scale of pay with effect from 1.12.2008. The petitioner's father was one of those 6000 casual laboruers appointed with effect from 1.12.2007. He joined on 31.1.2008 and worked as temporary casual labourer. After the completion of one year, a list was drawn for the purpose of absorption as Mazdoor. The petitioner's father's name found place in the said list, as seen from the memo No.874/Adm./A3/F.CL as TCL/2008-1 dated 30.1.2008 in Sl.No.4. Thereafter, by the proceedings dated 10.6.2009, the temporary casual laboruers were appointed as Mazdoors in the time scale of pay. The petitioner's father's name has been shown in Sl.No.4 at List Sl.No.16 in Memo dated 30.1.2008. Unfortunately, in the meanwhile he died while in service on 14.5.2009. The petitioner made a request for compassionate appointment. By the impugned order, it was rejected on the sole ground that his father, not being a permanent employee, the same cannot be considered. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue raised in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. Lakshmi Vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2012 (3) Labour Law Notes 681, which was followed by another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20994 of 2010 by Order dated 18.3.2014. While considering the very same issue, this Court in the said order dated 18.3.2014 held as follows: ''5. The legal issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner as a legal heir is entitled for the relief sought for. This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. Lakshmi Vs. The legal issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner as a legal heir is entitled for the relief sought for. This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. Lakshmi Vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2012(3) Labour Law Notes 681 (DB) (Mad).; in fact, in the said case, the facts were almost identical, where the widow of a casual temporary employee approached this Court for the same relief. The Honourable Division Bench, after taking note of the various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- "33. Admittedly, because of the tragic demise of the petitioner's husband on 23.11.2003, his name could not find a place in the final list of 61 Contract Labourers of Erode Generation Circle who were absorbed as Helpers as per B.P.No.14, (Adm.Br) dated 05.08.2005. Had he been alive, then certainly, the respondents would have showered him with the benefit of conferment of permanent status. During the life time of the petitioner's husband, he was not conferred with permanent status, which was not disputed on both sides. 34. On going through the ingredients of Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, we are of the considered view that the petitioner's husband, completed 480 days of work in a period of 24 calendar months (during his lifetime), and would become automatically a permanent employee under the respondents/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, because of the simple fact that the Section mandates the respondents to confer permanent status on the petitioner's husband S.Raju and the conferment of permanent status to the petitioner's husband S.Raju/Employee/Workman would not depend upon his Employer on his own or on a direction given by the Competent Authority under the Act. 35. The words "employed" in Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, are not directory in nature, in our considered opinion. Per contra, they are mandatory in character. In short, the deeming clause of Section 3(1) of the Act as aforesaid is explicit and admits of no exception as opined by this Court. Per contra, they are mandatory in character. In short, the deeming clause of Section 3(1) of the Act as aforesaid is explicit and admits of no exception as opined by this Court. Furthermore, the petitioner's husband late Raju satisfied the essential condition of being a worker and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being his master, so as to claim the permanent status. Thus, the logical conclusion that can be deduced in the present case is that even if no order of regularization was passed in respect of the petitioner's husband Raju (since deceased), the statutory benefit of permanent status is to be necessarily granted to him by the respondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 36. We also hold that even in the absence of any enquiry conducted by the Inspector under the Act, the right conferred upon the petitioner's husband to claim the benefit of permanent status could not be denied by any means because of the simple fact that Section 3(1) of the Act imposes an obligation upon the respondents/Electricity Board Authorities to confer permanent status of the petitioner's husband, who had rendered 480 days of work continuously in a period of 24 calendar months and on that basis, we hold that the petitioner's husband deceased S.Raju is entitled to be made permanent by the respondents/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Authorities and once, in law, he was entitled to the benefit of conferment of permanent status, the resultant benefit could not be deprived to the petitioner (wife) notwithstanding the fact that during his lifetime no such permanency was conferred on him. Viewed in that perspective, we hold that a Workman, who had completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months, would become automatically a permanent Employee under the Employer, even if, an Employer had not conferred him with the permanent status or even if, an employer had not conferred him with the permanent status of even if, no direction was issued by the Competent Authority in this regard under the Act, 1981 or the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, we answer the Reference. 37. Accordingly, we answer the Reference. 37. Also, on the basis of equity, fair play, good conscience and even a matter of prudence, we direct the respondents/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Authorities to issue appropriate proceedings in making the petitioner's deceased husband Raju as a permanent employee of the Board and to pay the petitioner family pension, family benefit and other terminal benefits including Gratuity as per Rules and regulations from time to time in force. The respondents are further directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner's dated 8.12.2003 and 8.1.2004 wherein she had prayed for compassionate appointment being provided to her daughter Valarmathi as per Rules and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, (if not already considered and disposed of.) 38. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner's family pension and other terminal benefits including gratuity etc due to be paid to the petitioner's deceased husband within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As such, the writ petition is allowed in above terms. No costs." 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board preferred a Special Leave Petition against the above judgment and the same was dismissed and subsequently, the decision was implemented. 7. No material has been placed before this Court by the Respondent Board to show that the facts of the present case are in any manner different from that of the decision in the case of R. Lakshmi (cited supra). 8. In the light of the fact that the petitioner's husband's employment as Temporary Casual Labour with effect from 28.01.2008, having been admitted, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief as granted by the Honourable Division Bench. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 10.09.2008 for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Since the writ petition was pending from 2010 onwards and the legal issue has been decided only now, the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground of delay or on the ground that she is aged above 40 years as on date. 10. Since the writ petition was pending from 2010 onwards and the legal issue has been decided only now, the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground of delay or on the ground that she is aged above 40 years as on date. In the decision of the Honourable Division Bench, it was held that since the employee has completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months, he would be conferred with permanent status; similarly in the case on hand, S. Gopalsamy was absorbed as Temporary Casual Labour on 29.01.2008 having been identified on 16.11.2007. Since he had worked under various contractors between March 1987 to March 2005, the petitioner's husband should be treated as a permanent employee of the board for all purposes from 01.12.2009 from which date he would have been absorbed as permanent employee of the Board, had he been alive. Therefore, the respondent shall also calculate the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner as a consequence of treating the late husband Gopalsamy as permanent employee of the Board from 01.12.2009. Such order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'' 3. As the facts involved in this writ petition are similar and the ratio laid down in the above said derision, being applicable to the case on hand, this writ petition stands allowed on the very same terms as held in the Order dated 18.3.2014 made in W.P.No.20994 of 2010. However, there is no order as to costs.