ORDER : 1. The above Writ petition is filed by the petitioner, the wife of the deceased Government employee, challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 15118/Aa2/2010, dated 12.08.2010 and consequential order in Na. Ka. No. 15118/Aa2/2010, dated 04.08.2011, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment to the petitioner's son on compassionate ground. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner's husband, Late P. Selvam, was working in Fire station, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District and he died on 01.12.2001, while he was in service. 4. The petitioner submitted that she filed an application immediately after the demise of her husband in the year 2001 and that in the said application she sought appointment for herself on compassionate ground. Since the petitioner's son was minor and studying in school, she wanted appointment for herself immediately upon her husband's demise. 5. The petitioner's case is that in the year 2001, the petitioner had not qualified 10th standard and that therefore, the respondents asked her to complete 10th standard and seek appointment. However, she could not pursue her studies, due to poor health and poverty. 6. The petitioner's further case is that she gave a representation, dated 1.4.2006 to the respondents that due to her poor health, she would apply for appointment of her son on compassionate ground, after her son attains majority. In continuation of her application, the petitioner further stated that she also reminded the respondents that her son would complete 10th standard and that he would attain the age of 18 years on 02.05.2011, by a letter dated 18.06.2008. The petitioner also submit that she also filed an application on 22.07.2010, seeking appointment on compassionate ground in favour of her son, as he would attain the majority on 02.05.2011. However, the petitioner's application, dated 22.07.2010, was rejected by the respondents on the ground that her earlier application, dated 4.10.2006 itself was beyond the period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another application immediately, after her son attained the majority. This application was also rejected by an order, dated 04.08.2011. Challenging the order of the respondents, dated 12.08.2010 and proceedings, dated 04.08.2011, the above Writ petition is filed. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another application immediately, after her son attained the majority. This application was also rejected by an order, dated 04.08.2011. Challenging the order of the respondents, dated 12.08.2010 and proceedings, dated 04.08.2011, the above Writ petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:- (a) The first respondent failed to consider the fact that the petitioner had submitted the application immediately after the death of her husband. Though the said application was filed seeking appointment for herself on compassionate ground, the said application was pending. Hence, the subsequent applications filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 and 2011 should be considered as valid applications in continuation of the original application that was filed by the petitioner in the year 2001 itself. (b) The petitioner's application for her son is within three years from the date of her son attaining majority and that therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application is not valid, having regard to the law settled by this Court in various precedents. (c) The first respondent failed to consider the petitioner's application having regard to the financial crisis in which the family of the Government servant exist and that the intention of the Government to give appointment to the dependants of the deceased Government employee is defeated by the impugned order passed by the respondents. (d) When an application itself can be filed by any member of the family within three years from the date of attaining majority, the petitioner's application which is filed immediately after her son attaining majority cannot be rejected. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the fact that the petitioner's husband died on 01.12.2001, while he was in service is admitted. Similarly, the deceased employee left behind his wife and two minor children is also admitted. However, it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner on 20.12.2002, was not an application for compassionate appointment. It is pointed out that the petitioner has expressed only her intention to seek appointment on compassionate ground, after completing her 10th examination and that therefore, no application was filed within a period of three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's husband. It is pointed out that the petitioner has expressed only her intention to seek appointment on compassionate ground, after completing her 10th examination and that therefore, no application was filed within a period of three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's husband. Since, there was a ban, the respondents admitted that they could not process any application seeking appointment on compassionate ground till the ban was lifted by Government Order, dated 21.02.2006. However, it could be seen that a communication, dated 28.08.2006, the Deputy Director, Fire Service and Rescue Service called for clarification from the Divisional Office to enquire whether the petitioner is interested in getting appointment on compassionate ground and to submit a report in that regard. 9. Therefore, the petitioner, by a communication, dated 04.10.2006, submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to accept the appointment on compassionate ground on account of her poor health condition. She further stated that she was under treatment, due to her bad physical condition and that she wanted appointment to be given to her son who was then studying only in 10th standard. Hence, in the said representation, the petitioner wanted the respondents to permit the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate ground to her son immediately upon attaining majority. The petitioner also renewed her request on 18.12.2009 and requesting the respondents to consider her son's candidature for appointment on compassionate ground immediately upon completing 18 years of age. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon a Government Letter in........ dated 04.05.2010, wherein, the Government has issued guidelines and clarified the position in the following manner:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. As per the clarification issued by the Government in the letter, dated 04.05.2010, it can be seen that the Government has directed to consider the applications filed before 23.08.2005, if they are filed within three years from the date of death of the Government employee and that even in the cases where, the dependant has not completed 18 years as on the date of the application, the same can be considered if the dependant satisfied other conditions. However, it was clarified that after the date on 23.08.2005, only a person who attained the age of 18 years will be considered as qualified for providing appointment on compassionate ground. However, it was clarified that after the date on 23.08.2005, only a person who attained the age of 18 years will be considered as qualified for providing appointment on compassionate ground. It is further clarified that three years will be calculated only by taking into account the date on which the application is filed. 12. By relying upon the said Government letter, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's application which was received after 2006 cannot be considered, as the petitioner's son has not attained the age of majority, when the application was filed. Since the original application filed in the year 2002, is not an application seeking compassionate appointment, the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2009 and 2010 cannot be considered. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court, in the case of G. Saravanakumar vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2011 (2) CWC 83 , it is extracted as follows:- "7. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner's father was employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he died on 12.09.2006 while he was in service. The same is evident from the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Gangavalli, dated 10.11.2006 and from the Consolidated Certificate issued by the very same authority on 10.06.2010. The Application submitted by the petitioner's mother and widow of the deceased TNEB employee on 08.12.2008 seeking compassionate appointment for her is not in dispute. On 11.02.2010 the third respondent directed the petitioner's mother to submit the application for compassionate appointment along with Death Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate and Consent letter from other legal heirs. The fact that the petitioner has also submitted the application for compassionate appointment along with all the required documents on 21.01.2011 is also not in dispute. But, however the petitioner was not provided with any employment in the respondent-Board. The fact that the petitioner has also submitted the application for compassionate appointment along with all the required documents on 21.01.2011 is also not in dispute. But, however the petitioner was not provided with any employment in the respondent-Board. 8.(a) Similar issue as to whether an application seeking compassionate appointment can be rejected on the ground that the application was not submitted within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and whether completion of 18 years within three years, is a mandatory requirement when earlier application submitted by other claimant is kept pending, was considered by this Court in the decision reported in T. Meer Ismail Ali vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2004 (3) CTC 120, [F.M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, J. (as he then was)]. In the said case the deceased Board employee died on 13.04.1993 and the application submitted by one of his daughter on 5.8.1997 was rejected on the ground that she had not completed 18 years of age and after completing 18 years of age when an application was made on 4.7.2000 which was rejected on the ground that the application was not made within three years from the date when the Board proceedings, dated 13.10.1995 was issued. This Court considering the technical plea raised by the respondent- Board set aside the said order remitted the matter to pass fresh orders without reference to the objections already raised by the Board. The said order of the learned single Judge was challenged by the TNEB in W.A. No. 4008 of 2004 before the First Bench of this Court (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, C.J. (as he then was) and N.V. Balasubramanian, J.) dismissed the Writ Appeal on 1.12.2004. The respondents herein filed SLP No. 6387 of 2005 against the said order which was also dismissed on 1.4.2005 by the Honourable Supreme Court and consequently the said Writ petitioner was given compassionate appointment. (b) Another Writ petition in W.P. No. 41459 of 2005 was considered by me on the same set of facts. The said Writ petition was allowed following the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A. No. 4008 of 2004, dated 1.12.2004 and the said decision is reported in Selvi R. Anbarasi vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, 2006 (2) MLJ 200 . The said Writ petition was allowed following the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A. No. 4008 of 2004, dated 1.12.2004 and the said decision is reported in Selvi R. Anbarasi vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, 2006 (2) MLJ 200 . The said order was challenged by the TNEB before the First Bench in W.A. No. 988 of 2006. However, the said petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground by implementing the order and therefore, the Writ Appeal was dismissed as infructuous on 15.09.2006 by recording the statement made by the Standing Counsel for the TNEB. (c) In W.P. No. 21512 of 2003 one Indiraniammal challenged the rejection of compassionate appointment on similar ground. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition by order dated 4.8.2003 against which the petitioner therein filed W.A. No. 3050 of 2003 and the said Writ Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam (as he than was) & S.K. Krishnan, J.) by order dated 8.3.2005 following the earlier Judgments as well as the Supreme Court Judgment reported in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2000 (6) SCC 493 . Against the said decision Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 was filed by the respondent-Board herein which was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 30.03.2010. (d) Dismissal of another W.P. No. 775 of 2004 by order dated 29.01.2005 on the ground of delay was considered by the Division Bench (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, J. (as he then was) & P. Murugesan, J.) in W.A. (MD) No. 29 of 2006 and by order dated 27.06.2006 the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal and directed to give compassionate appointment to the younger son of the deceased Board employee, who died on 15.11.1996. The said order of the Division Bench was also challenged by the Board in S.L.P. (C) No. 15534 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.4.2009. (e) Three Writ petitions were disposed of by me i.e. W.P. Nos. 19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order, dated 24.07.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the above three Writ petitions, which were allowed, Writ Appeal was filed against one Writ petition in W.A. No. 1206 of 2006 while implementing the order in respect of other two cases. 19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order, dated 24.07.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the above three Writ petitions, which were allowed, Writ Appeal was filed against one Writ petition in W.A. No. 1206 of 2006 while implementing the order in respect of other two cases. The said Writ Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 29.09.2006. The respondent in the Writ Appeal viz. J .Karthick filed review application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 25.08.2008. Against the dismissal of the Writ Appeal as well as rejection of Review Application, the said J. Karthick filed S.L.P. (C) No. 2004-2005/2009 and on 23.02.2009 the SLPs were tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 viz. Indiraniammal case. Subsequently, the said SLP was numbered as Civil Case Nos. 5068-5069 of 2009 which was allowed on 30.03.2010 and the said order reads as follows:- "Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Appeals have been filed against the impugned Judgment of the High Court of Madras, dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.08.2008 passed in the Review Application. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the Judgment of the learned Single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench and restore the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. No costs." (Emphasis Supplied) From the perusal of the above order, it is evident that the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal and in the Review petition were set aside and the order of the Single Judge, dated 29.09.2006 was restored. (f) In W.P. No. 18575 of 2006, I had an occasion to consider similar issue and allowed the Writ petition on 20.06.2006 by following earlier orders. The said order was also challenged by the respondent in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 and the Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J. & K. Venkataraman, J.) dismissed the Writ Appeal on 2.7.2009. (f) In W.P. No. 18575 of 2006, I had an occasion to consider similar issue and allowed the Writ petition on 20.06.2006 by following earlier orders. The said order was also challenged by the respondent in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 and the Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J. & K. Venkataraman, J.) dismissed the Writ Appeal on 2.7.2009. The Board filed S.L.P. (C) No. 8305 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 6.7.2010. The said candidate viz. P. Venkatesan was given compassionate appointment by order dated 18.08.2010. (g) Again similar matter was considered by me in W.P. No. 29059 of 2003 and relief granted by order dated 7.7.2006, against which also the Board filed W.A. No. 1652 of 2006. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J & S. Nagamuthu, J.) on 30.03.2009. (h) W.P. (MD) No. 1335 of 2006 was disposed of by me on 10.08.2006. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran (as he then was) & P.R. Shivakumar, J.) in W.A. No. 309 of 2007 on 8.8.2007 and the same is reported in Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle vs. V. Jaya, 2007 (6) MLJ 2011 and the said candidate viz. V. Jaya was given appointment order. (i) Similar matter was against considered by me in W.P. No. 4050 of 2006 and the said Writ petition was allowed by order dated 29.06.2010 following the orders of the Division Bench and Supreme Court and the said Judgment is reported in M. Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, 2010 (7) MLJ 644 . No appeal is filed against the said order. 9. From the above referred decisions passed by this Court in series of cases on the same ground, it is evident that the similar grounds raised by the respondents that the petitioner has not filed application seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of his father and that he has not completed 18 years of age within three years are not valid grounds to deny appointment on compassionate grounds." 14. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 , wherein it has been held as follows:- "12. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 , wherein it has been held as follows:- "12. We are of the view that the High Court has erred in overstretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that the High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependant of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account of untimely demise of its sole earning member. 13. This Court has considered the scope of the aforesaid circulars in Haryana SEB vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 816 : JT (1996) 2 SC 542. In that case the widow of a deceased employee made an application almost twelve years after the death of her husband requesting for accommodating her son in the employment of the Board, but it was rejected by the Board. When she moved the High Court the Board was directed to appoint him on compassionate grounds. This Court upset the said directions of the High Court following two earlier decisions rendered by this Court, one in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 STC 537, the other in Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1996) 32 ATC 238. In the former, a Bench of two Judges has pointed out that - the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased. In the former, a Bench of two Judges has pointed out that - the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased. In the later decision, which also was rendered by a Bench of two Judges, it was observed that the very object of appointment of a dependant of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. The learned Judge pointed out that if the claim of the dependant which was preferred long after the death of the deceased employee is to be countenanced it would amount to another mode of recruitment of the dependant of the deceased Government servant 'which cannot be encouraged, dehors the recruitment rules." 15. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412 , wherein, it is extracted as follows:- "5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case." 16. This Court considered the admitted facts in the light of Judgments relied upon by the both sides. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner has submitted an application in the year 2002, within three years from the date of the death of her husband. The application that was submitted by the petitioner on 20.12.2002, is an application just to register her future claim, if she intended to make after completing her 10th standard. However, she wanted to apply for the appointment on compassionate ground, after completing the 10th standard. The application that was submitted by the petitioner on 20.12.2002, is an application just to register her future claim, if she intended to make after completing her 10th standard. However, she wanted to apply for the appointment on compassionate ground, after completing the 10th standard. However, the fact remains that she did not complete 10th standard and she did not renew her application on her own. It is admitted that in the year 2006, the respondents wanted information from the petitioner as to whether she seeks appointment on compassionate ground. This communication was sent to the petitioner immediately, after the ban was lifted. Strangely, the petitioner by her communication, dated 04.10.2006, informed the respondents that she is not in a position to accept the appointment on compassionate ground, because of her physical ailments. However, she wanted the respondents to consider her son's candidature for appointment, after he attains majority. 17. It is in this factual background, this Court is not in a position to treat the application which was filed in the year 2010, as one in continuation of the petitioner's application submitted in the year 2002. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner filed an application within the time seeking appointment to herself on compassionate ground. When it was offered in the year 2006, the petitioner expressed her inability to accept the appointment on compassionate ground, but wanted the respondents to consider her son for appointment on compassionate ground, after he attains the age of 18 years. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the application is filed by the son for appointment on compassionate ground for the first time, after majority and such application is filed several years later, there is no scope for entertaining the application unless it is specifically provided by the rules. Though it is not disputed that a dependant of the deceased Government employee submitted an application for the appointment immediately within three years from the date of attaining majority, the application filed by the petitioner after expressing her difficulty in not accepting the offer in the year 2006 cannot be considered as one in continuation of the original application filed in the year 2002. 18. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, challenging the Writ petition is not invalid and the same do not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. 18. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, challenging the Writ petition is not invalid and the same do not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. Hence, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.