Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner submits that the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited, is a State owned Corporation and falls within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner further submits that the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited, being the instrumentality of the State, all the executive orders passed by the Government in the matter of employment to Government servant are also applicable to the employees of TAPCO. The petitioner further submits that to be specific, the executive instructions issued in the form of Government Orders and guidelines for compassionate appointments will also govern the employees of TAPCO. 2. The petitioner further submits that his father (Late) P.G. Chandran, belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community, a Scheduled Caste, was appointed as a casual labour on 14.03.1981 at Vellore Branch of the second respondent's Corporation. The petitioner's father has been continuing in the said capacity for about 10 years. Like, the petitioner's father throughout the State, there were number of causal labourers, who have been working in the second respondent's Corporation on casual basis without regularization. The petitioner further submits that the Association to which the petitioner's father belonged took up the matter to the higher authorities of the TAPCO for regularization of their services, as they have put in long number of years of service. The request of the Association was considered by the TAPCO and the 81st Board Meeting held on 30.11.1988, passed a resolution for creation of 100 posts of Farm Assistants in the TAPCO. It was also resolved to fill up the said posts by prompting the casual labourers working in the TAPCO as Farm Assistants. The petitioner further submits that by proceedings dated 11.04.1990 made in Roc.No.19551/E1/89, the Managing Director of the second respondent Corporation has appointed the petitioner's father as Farm Assistant in the Marketing Unit of the Vellore Branch of the Corporation. The scale of pay for the post of Farm Assistant has been fixed as Rs.750-12-870-14-940. The order of appointment will take effect from 16.04.1990. In the order of appointment itself, it has been specifically stated that the services of the petitioner's father will be governed by the Service Rules of the TAPCO. The scale of pay for the post of Farm Assistant has been fixed as Rs.750-12-870-14-940. The order of appointment will take effect from 16.04.1990. In the order of appointment itself, it has been specifically stated that the services of the petitioner's father will be governed by the Service Rules of the TAPCO. Thus, the petitioner's father is a regular employee of the TAPCO for all purposes and he is entitled to all the rights and privileges governing the posts. 3. The petitioner further submits that while his father was working as Farm Assistant in the Marketing Unit at Nandanam, he died due to illness on 30.09.1998. At the time of death, the age of the petitioner's father was 48. The petitioner's father had 10 years of service ahead to reach his age of superannuation. The petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of his family and the family has no other independent source of income. At the time of death, the petitioner's father left behind his wife, 5 daughters and 1 son as his legal-heirs. The details of legal-heirs are as follows:- Sl.No Name Age Relationship with petitioner's father 1 Tmt.C.Pavanammal 47 wife 2 Tmt.Kala 28 Daughter 3 Selvi Mala 26 Daughter 4 Tmt.Dhanalakshmi 25 Daughter 5. Selvan Ganapathy 24 Son 6. Selvi Sivasankari 19 Daughter 7. Selvi Gayathri 17 Daughter The petitioner further submits that due to the sudden death of his father, the family of the deceased was put to economic death. The petitioner is the only male member of his family without any employment. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner had just completed his SSLC. Subsequently, he passed Plus Two examination held in March 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner joined B.Sc. Course in the local college at Vellore and completed the same during 1997. The petitioner further submits that he has also registered his name in the Vellore District Employment Exchange, Vellore and registration number is 2955/90, dated 27.02.1990. 4. The petitioner further submits that he is the only male member of the family, studied upto B.Sc., and the entire family burden rests on his shoulders. The second respondent-Corporation by proceedings dated 09.04.1999, disbursed a sum of Rs.22,668/- being the terminal benefits to the petitioner's mother. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother and younger sister received a sum of Rs.41,000/- from Provident Fund Office. The second respondent-Corporation by proceedings dated 09.04.1999, disbursed a sum of Rs.22,668/- being the terminal benefits to the petitioner's mother. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother and younger sister received a sum of Rs.41,000/- from Provident Fund Office. The amounts received were not even sufficient to clear the outstanding loan borrowed consequent on the death of his father. So, there is no pension that is being granted by the TAPCO to the widow i.e., petitioner's mother. Thus, the family is suffering untold hardships and the entire family is leading a miserable life. The petitioner further submits that as the family is crippled with financial crisis, the petitioner has applied, vide his representation dated 12.11.1998 to the TAPCO, the second respondent herein to consider his name for compassionate appointment in any one of the suitable posts commensurate with his qualification. However, to his shock and surprise by proceedings dated 16.02.1999 made in No.Na.Ka.8347/E1/98, the TAPCO has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground "that a post is not vacant for his appointment on compassionate ground". Immediately, the petitioner submitted an appeal dated 22.03.1999 to the Chairman of TAPCO for reconsideration of the order dated 16.02.1999 and give him appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner further submits that to his shock and surprise the Managing Director, TAPCO by proceedings dated 07.06.1999 made in Na.Ka.No.8347/E1/98 has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground "that the Government have ordered the closure of TAPCO and therefore, it is not possible to examine his request for appointment". The rejection of his claim without any sympathy is not only arbitrary, but also contrary to the guidelines issued in the matter of compassionate appointment by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also represented to the Collector of Vellore District by his representation dated 15.06.1999 to give him appointment in any establishment which falls under the control of the third respondent on compassionate grounds. Though the said petition is pending, till date the petitioner has not received any orders from the said respondent. 5. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also represented to the Collector of Vellore District by his representation dated 15.06.1999 to give him appointment in any establishment which falls under the control of the third respondent on compassionate grounds. Though the said petition is pending, till date the petitioner has not received any orders from the said respondent. The petitioner further submits that even assuming that the Government had decided to close the Corporation, it has always been the practice that the staff of the closed establishment will be either merged with the other State-owned Corporation or absorbed in other Government establishments. The petitioner further submits that TAPCO comes under the overall control of the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009, the first respondent herein. There are number of establishments functioning under the control of the first respondent and in the event of closure of TAPCO naturally, the members of staff of TAPCO have to be accommodated in any one of the wings of the Animal Husbandry Department. What applies to the existing employees will also be applicable to the (Late) P.G. Chandran, father of the petitioner. Therefore, even assuming the second respondent-TAPCO is closed, then the claim of the petitioner can be considered in any one of the establishments under the control of the first respondent on compassionate grounds. The petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that the very purpose of giving appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the "indigent circumstances" of the family. In giving appointment on compassionate grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent that the Rules relating to the appointment may be relaxed in favour of the claimant so that the object of retrieving the family from indigent circumstances will be met immediately. 6. The petitioner further submits that though his father died during the year 1998, the family consisting of seven members are suffering for their day-to-day livelihood. All the female members of the family except the mother are below 30 years and the settlement of their marriage is also in jeopardy. Though the family is living in indigent circumstances none of the respondents have come forward to redress the grievances of the petitioner vis-a-vis the family of the deceased. All the female members of the family except the mother are below 30 years and the settlement of their marriage is also in jeopardy. Though the family is living in indigent circumstances none of the respondents have come forward to redress the grievances of the petitioner vis-a-vis the family of the deceased. The whole object underlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been foiled under one sentence, viz., that the "Government have decided to close the establishment". Hence, the petitioner has no other alternative immediate and efficacious remedy except to approach this Court for suitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further submits that though the second respondent has replied stating that the Government have decided to close the TAPCO, the factual position is that the day-to-day activities of TAPCO are still going on, that the various stalls established by the TAPCO are still functioning in the City of Chennai and other places and that there has been no functional closure of the activities of TAPCO. When such being the case, till the actual closure takes effect the petitioner could easily be accommodated in any one of the existing establishments on compassionate grounds. Had his father been alive, the second respondent would have paid his salary for another ten years. While so, by giving employment to the petitioner either in an equivalent post or in a lower post no monetary loss will be caused to the Corporation. These aspects have not at all been considered by the Corporation while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner further added that there are Government guidelines as well as rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that whenever there is a need for a particular qualification for a person to be appointed in a particular post, the same can be relaxed whenever there is a consideration for compassionate appointment. The petitioner, who has passed plus two and completed B.Sc., could have been accommodated in any one of the suitable posts available with the second respondent instead of rejecting his claim. The petitioner further submits that his family is hard pressed for their daily sustenance. Hence, it is just and necessary that the petitioner has to be given appointment on compassionate grounds at least on temporary basis immediately, pending issue of orders on his claim for regular appointment on compassionate appointment pending disposal of the main writ petition. The petitioner further submits that his family is hard pressed for their daily sustenance. Hence, it is just and necessary that the petitioner has to be given appointment on compassionate grounds at least on temporary basis immediately, pending issue of orders on his claim for regular appointment on compassionate appointment pending disposal of the main writ petition. By issuing such a direction no prejudice will be caused to the respondents herein. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner further submits that Article 37 of the Constitution of India mandates that the provisions contained in Part IV - Directive Principles of State Policy - are Fundamental to the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Article 13 of the Constitution states that the word "law" includes any order made by the State. Under Article 12, the TAPCO is an instrumentality of the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, before making an order as in the impugned orders dated 16.02.1999 and 07.06.1999, the second respondent ought to have applied its mind to the principles contained in Articles 41 dealing with "right to work" and Article 46 which deals with "promotion of economic interests of Scheduled Caste". The above failure on the part of the second respondent therefore calls for judicial interference by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in a temporary capacity in any suitable post. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 9. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter statement and refuted the above writ petition. The respondents submit that Thiru. P.G. Chandran, father of the petitioner was appointed as casual labour in second respondent-Corporation on 14.03.1981 and he was temporarily promoted as Farm Assistant in TAPCO's Proc.No.19551/E1/89, dated 11.04.1990 and he joined duty on the forenoon of 16.04.1990. Thiru. P.G. Chandran, was appointed as Farm Assistant with effect from 16.04.1990, in the scale of pay of Rs.750-12-870-14-940 and his service was not regularized till his death. The respondents further submit that the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was placed before the Board of Directors of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited during 140th Meeting held on 29.01.1999. The respondents further submit that the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was placed before the Board of Directors of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited during 140th Meeting held on 29.01.1999. The Board resolved to inform the petitioner that there was no vacancy at that time in the second respondent-Corporation for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the individual was informed about the Board's decision vide Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited's Office Roc.8347/E1/98, dated 16.02.1999. The respondents further submit that the petitioner has again represented in his application dated 22.03.1999 and requested for appointment on compassionate grounds. He was informed vide Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited's Office Roc.No.8347/E1/98, dated 07.06.1999 that the Government have ordered the closure of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited and therefore, it is not possible to examine his request for appointment. 10. The respondents submit that in response to the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.06.1999, the third respondent has addressed the first respondent vide his letter Roc.No.A3, 85359/99-1, dated 12.01.2000 and copy marked to the second respondent informing that no such petition has been received in the office of the third respondent. Further, the third respondent has informed that he is not at all concerned either to consider or to give appointment on compassionate ground to a person belonging to other Department without any specific orders from the Government. The respondents further submit that the first respondent had issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.86, Animal Husbandry and Fiseries (TAPCO) Department, dated 19.04.1999 as follows:- "The Government after careful examination of all pertinent aspects of this issue including the feasibility of resurrection have decided to close down the operation of the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited, without detriment to the interest of Government and as well as the employees of the Corporation." The Government decided to close down the Corporation and issued G.O.Ms.No.86, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (TAPCO) Department dated 19.04.1999, without detriment to the interest of the Government and as well as the employees of the Corporation the Board of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited accepted to adopt and implement the above said Government Order in Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited. The Corporation had come to a stage of closing down without any operation and hence, it approached the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai for permission to close down the Corporation in Closure Application No.5 of 2000. The Corporation had come to a stage of closing down without any operation and hence, it approached the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai for permission to close down the Corporation in Closure Application No.5 of 2000. The Commissioner of Labour by his order, dated 15.11.2000 accorded permission under Section 25.0 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) to Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited to close down the undertaking from 29.12.2000. The closure order had been stayed by this Court till 15.03.2001 in W.P.No.10489 of 2000 filed by the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited all employees Association. The Judgment on the W.P.No.10489 of 2000 was delivered on 12.03.20001. Hence, all the employees of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited were informed about the closure of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited with effect from 29.12.2000. All the employees of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited were sent out from Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited on VRS/Retrenchment". In the above circumstances, there is no possibility of giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds." The respondents further submit that the second respondent-Corporation could not be run in profitable manner for various reasons beyond the control of the Management. Therefore, it was decided to close down the said Corporation. With great difficulty some of the employees were redeployed. Most of the employees either opted for VRS or retrenchment. Therefore, there is no scope to give appointment to petitioner on compassionate grounds. All the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee of the second respondent were paid to the mother and other legal-heirs including the petitioner. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 11. Mr. S. Arunkumar, the highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was appointed as a casual labour on 14.03.1981 at Vellore Branch of Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited. The petitioner's father has been continuing in the said post for about 10 years. Further, in the same second respondent's Corporation, there are a number of casual laboureres, who worked in the same position as casual labourer. Under the circumstances, the Association of Laboureres made a deep request to the employer/second respondent Corporation. The petitioner's father has been continuing in the said post for about 10 years. Further, in the same second respondent's Corporation, there are a number of casual laboureres, who worked in the same position as casual labourer. Under the circumstances, the Association of Laboureres made a deep request to the employer/second respondent Corporation. The same was considered by the second respondent in their Board Meeting which was held on 30.11.1988 and a resolution was passed for creation of 100 posts of Farm Assistants in the TAPCO. Accordingly, the petitioner and other casual labourers were promoted as Farm Assistants. Accordingly, the petitioner's father was appointed a Farm Assistant in the Marketing Unit of the Vellore Branch of the Corporation on 11.04.1990. After promoting the petitioner's father, the pay scale was fixed at Rs.750-12-870-14-940. As such, the petitioner was working as a Farm Assistant in a regular post. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's father expired due to his illness on 30.09.1998. At the time of death, his father was aged 48 years and he had 10 years of service ahead to reach his age of superannuation. The petitioner's family consisting of mother, 5 sisters and himself. He is the only male person to look after the entire family affairs after his father's death. The petitioner has possessed Secondary Grade Leave Certificate at the time of death of his father. Thereafter, he has completed Bachelor of Science Course at a College in Vellore. 12. The highly competent counsel Mr. S. Arunkumar appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community and living below the poverty line. Further, the petitioner made representation to the respondents on various dates. However, the petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that the second respondent-Corporation was closed. The highly competent counsel further submits that the Corporation was closed but the employees of the Corporation were absorbed by the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Department. As such, the Animal Husbandry Department has to provide a suitable job on the basis of petitioner's educational qualification on compassionate grounds. The other legal-heirs of the deceased P.G. Chandran have given no objection statements/letter to provide job to the petitioner on the ground of compassion without any condition. Hence, the highly competent counsel made a deep request to grant relief to the petitioner. 13. The highly competent counsel Mr. The other legal-heirs of the deceased P.G. Chandran have given no objection statements/letter to provide job to the petitioner on the ground of compassion without any condition. Hence, the highly competent counsel made a deep request to grant relief to the petitioner. 13. The highly competent counsel Mr. S. Sivashanmugam appearing for the second respondent submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner's father, Mr. P.G. Chandran was appointed as a casual labourer in the Corporation on 14.03.1981. Subsequently, he was promoted as Farm Assistant on 11.04.1990 on a temporary basis and his scale of pay was fixed at Rs.750-12-870-14-940 per month. The petitioner made representation to the second respondent Corporation and sought an appointment under a compassionate ground and the same was informed that there was no vacancy at that time in the second respondent's Corporation for appointment on compassionate ground and the same was communicated to the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable since the impugned order passed by the second respondent's Board has become final. Further, there is no specific provision to provide a job to the petitioner under compassionate grounds. Further, the first and third respondents have not received any communication or representation from the petitioner and as such, they are not necessary party in the proceedings. Besides, the first and third respondents are not the employer of the deceased employee viz., the father of the petitioner. Further, the Government closed down the operation of the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited, after careful consideration and passed G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 19.04.1999 to that effect. Further, The Commissioner of Labour by his order, dated 15.11.2000 accorded permission under Section 25.0 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) to Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited to close down the undertaking from 29.12.2000. Thereafter, all the employees were sent out on the basis of voluntary retirement from service and retrenchment. Therefore, the petitioner's plea cannot be entertained. Further, all the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee had been received by the legal-heirs of the deceased employee. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 14. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr. S. Arunkumar vehemently pointed out that the employees of the second respondent were transferred to parental Department, viz., Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Department. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 14. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr. S. Arunkumar vehemently pointed out that the employees of the second respondent were transferred to parental Department, viz., Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Department. As such, the present employer, viz., Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Department, is the competent authority to provide a suitable job to the petitioner. 15. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of paper, this writ petition is disposed of on condition that the first respondent/Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department has to provide a suitable job to the petitioner on the ground of 'compassionate ground' whenever a suitable vacancy arises, on the topmost priority basis. 16. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.