Judgment 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him on compassionate grounds in any suitable post based on his qualification. 2. According to the Petitioner, his father was employed as 'Head Masdoor' in the Respondent Department from 18.08.1961. His services were provincialised from 24.11.1970 and necessary entries were made in the service records. On 17.12.1975, his father S.Chidambaram, died. All the retirement benefits including family pension is being paid to his mother, who is the nominee. At the time of demise of his father, the Petitioner was only 5 months baby. After completion of his +2 Standard, he made a representation to give him a posting on compassionate appointment. In Proceeding No.C 4/10109/97 dated 09.12.1997, the Third Respondent/the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Organisation, P.W.D., Thiruchirapalli Division, Trichi-20, forwarded all the particulars of the Petitioner to the Second Respondent. Further, the Second Respondent in letter dated 18.05.1999 forwarded a letter to the First Respondent stating that the Petitioner's family is in indigent circumstance and deserve appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that as per G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance Department dated 14.01.1977, persons working under work charged establishment were brought into regular services and their services were provincialised. However, his father expired before being brought into regular Establishment. As a matter of fact, the legal representatives of individuals, who had expired prior to being brought into regular establishment, were considered and 66 persons were given appointment on compassionate grounds in G.O.3(D) 149 Public Works (B3) Department dated 16.08.1994. It appears that the File No.16003/B is pending for so many years on the file of the First Respondent. The Petitioner's family is awaiting for appointment for the past 15 years and the family is facing severe financial difficulties and the Petitioner belongs to lowest strata of the society. 4. At this juncture, this Court very pertinently points out that in letter No. S4(1)/41809/96, dated 18.05.1999, the Second Respondent had addressed a communication to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. 4. At this juncture, this Court very pertinently points out that in letter No. S4(1)/41809/96, dated 18.05.1999, the Second Respondent had addressed a communication to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009, inter alia stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows: "As per the prevailing orders, appointment under compassionate grounds can be provided to the dependants of such provincialised workers who have been brought under regular establishment with reference to G.O. Second cited (i.e.) G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance Department dated 14.01.1977. But, many numbers of dependants of the provincialised work charged Establishment members who died prior to regularizing their services, with reference to G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance Department, Dated 14.01.1977, had been appointed under compassionate grounds, in this department by the Executive Engineers of this Department at their level prior to delegation of powers to the Heads of Department for making compassionate grounds appointment. Among which, the cases of 66 persons, have been regularised by issue of G.O.3.D No.149, Public Works (B3) Department, Dated 16.08.1994. Certain other cases have also been permitted to be appointed in this Department as isolated cases. For example a copy of G.O.3.D.No.146, Public Works (B3) Department, dated 27.08.1993 issued in favour of one Thiru K.K. Muralidharan, S/o.(Late) Thiru K.G. Kochappan, Work Inspector whose services were provincialised with effect from 24.11.1970 and who died subsequently on 29.01.1976 prior to bringing him under regular establishment with effect 01.01.77 FN is enclosed wherein the individual has been permitted to be appointed as Junior Assistant under compassionate grounds, considering the indigent circumstances of his family. 4. Similarly certain legal heirs/dependants of the Government Servants whose services were provincialised and died prior to bringing them under regular establishment with effect from 01.01.77 FN are representing this office, as well as to the Chief Minister's Complaint Cell, for providing employment opportunities under compassionate grounds, owing to the demise of the father and their cases have not been considered, although there are precedents, already. In view of the frequent representations, I am furnishing below the names of certain available cases of individuals, who are requesting to consider their cases for employment under compassionate grounds. Names of the applicant and Deceased Government Servant with Designation Post applied for 1. In view of the frequent representations, I am furnishing below the names of certain available cases of individuals, who are requesting to consider their cases for employment under compassionate grounds. Names of the applicant and Deceased Government Servant with Designation Post applied for 1. Thiru.L.Pandurangan S/o.(Late) Thiru S.Adhimoola Ramanujam, Lascar Junior Assistant cum Typist 2.Thiru C.Karthikeyan S/o.(ate) Thiru S.Chindambaram Head Mazdoor Junior Assistant cum Typist 3.Selvi N.Mallika D/o.(Late)Thiru.G.Narayanasamy, Watchman Sweeper 4.G.Parthasarathy S/o.(Late) Thiru D.Gangan, Lascar Sweeper or Gardner 5.S.Jambu (a) Shanmugavel S/o.(Late) Thiru.V.Shankara Subbiah Irrigation Assistant 6.R.Annadurai (a) Prabakar S/o.(Late)Thiru G.Ramadoss Irrigation Assistant 7.K.B.Perumal, S/o.(Late)Thiru B.Kolappa Pillai Assistant Draughtsman The connected documents relating to their request are sent herewith for perusal and for consideration. Documents in respect of item numbers 3 and 6 will be submitted separately. In all those cases, I am of the view that provincialisation of services of the Non-provincialised workers, have been done with reference to G.O.Ms.No.95, PWD, dated 9.01.71 in order to get all benefits like other regular Government Servants and that the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.51 Finance dated 14.01.77 provides conditions to regularise their services without any differentiation in service condition. The legal heirs of such Government servants provincialised and died prior to 01.01.77, can be made eligible for getting employment. Therefore, I also consider that it is not fair to deny the benefits to the dependants of the provincialised Government servants who died prior to 01.01.77 provided they satisfy the indigent circumstances and other conditions for appointment under compassionate grounds. On examination of documents, certificates of the above dependants, it is found that they are eligible and fully qualified for the posts applied for by them under the above pecuniary circumstances, these proposals may please be considered on humanitarian points of view taking their meritorious services, rendered in the Department, even though, they are not covered by the subsequent Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.51 Finance dated 14.01.77 and orders of Government permitting them to be appointed under compassionate grounds according to their qualification may please be obtained and communicated as special case." 5. A closer scrutiny of the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 18.05.1999 addressed by the Second Respondent to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai-9, indicates that the Second Respondent had clearly opined that it was not fair to deny the benefits to the dependants of the provincialised Government servants who died prior to 01.01.1977 provided they satisfy the indigent circumstances and other conditions for appointment under compassionate grounds, etc., 6. Also, in the said order, the proposals were required to be considered on humanitarian point of view taking their meritorious services rendered in the Department, even though they were not covered by the subsequent Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance dated 14.1.1977. In fact, the orders of Government permitting them to be appointed on compassionate grounds according to their qualification were sought for as a special case. 7. It transpires that till date, it is not known whether the letter dated 18.05.1999 of the Second Respondent addressed to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai-9, was considered by the appropriate/competent Authority and necessary orders were passed or otherwise. 8. It is to be pointed out that the term 'compassionate appointment' is a departure from the regular appointment. Only to alleviate the distress of the family because of loosing of breadwinner and to tide over the crisis that the family is in at the time of demise of breadwinner, the compassionate grounds appointment would be ordinarily sought for by the affected/aggrieved person and since it is not a regular method of appointment/source of recruitment, it is an exception to the general rule of appointment, in the considered opinion of this Court. 9. It is to be remembered that the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be considered as conferring a right to a ward of an employee to defeat other persons right. In the instant case on hand, the Petitioner's file seeking compassionate appointment is pending with the First Respondent for a very long period without yielding any result. It is always open to the First Respondent to pass appropriate orders in regard to pending file of the First Respondent based on rules and regulations that are in force from time to time, in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that law is an embodiment of all wisdom. A Court of law is to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 10. Also that law is an embodiment of all wisdom. A Court of law is to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 10. It is to be borne in mind that an employment in public service, as a rule, is to be made strictly based on open competition and merit. However, there is an exception to this rule that in order to meet the necessity of confirming to larger ideals of the State, some exceptions have been carved out. The object of the scheme of Compassionate Appointment is to grant an appointment on 'Compassionate Grounds' to a dependant family member of an employee dying in harness or who has retired on medical grounds thereby leaving his family in poverty without means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the concerned employee from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. 11. Indeed, the 'Compassionate Ground' being an exception to the normal recruitment procedure, application of the scheme is to be applied strictly. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA V. ASHA RAMACHANDRA AMBEKAR (MRS), AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 2648, held that 'Courts or Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration'. 12. This Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ANDHRAPRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER V. DANNINA RAJESWARI, 1999 SUPREME COURT CASES [LABOUR AND SERVICE] AT PAGE 1182, wherein it is observed that 'Compassionate Appointment can be directed to be given only in a clear vacancy'. 13. In view of the fact that the letter of the Second Respondent dated 18.05.1999 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai-9, is reportedly pending and also, this Court taking note of the fact that the Petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court on the basis of humanitarian approach and sympathetic consideration and also based on Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for an appointment on compassionate grounds, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment based on compassionate grounds and in this regard, the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pass a speaking reasoned order on merits in a Fair, Objective and dispassionate fashion within a time limit determined by this Court [uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court] in this Writ Petition and also, if necessary, by affording adequate opportunities to the Petitioner by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice, if situation so warrants. No costs.