JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Certified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.39611/EE2/06, dated 13.03.2009 and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground and to appoint the petitioner as Livestock Inspector. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the Writ petition are as follows: The petitioner has completed his Higher Secondary course. He belongs to Most Backward Class community. The petitioner's father M. Subburaj served in the respondent Department as Driver and his father died on 01.11.1991. His mother made a request for appointment to her son, namely, the petitioner, on compassionate ground on 14.03.1992. Thereafter, she made a further request on 12.12.2000. 2(i) On 10.01.2001, the petitioner, after attaining majority, sent his original certificates to the respondent and the same was acknowledged by the respondent. The petitioner's application was forwarded by the Zonal Director to the respondent by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11525/A1/2000, dated 29.01.2001. On 05.03.2001, the respondent Department called for the certificates of the petitioner, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5638/Aa/2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's application was forwarded by the Assistant Director of Veterinary Department to the Zonal Joint Director, Tirunelveli by proceedings, dated 18.01.2002. After that on 21.02.2002, the respondent called for his original certificates by proceedings in Na.Ka. No.75710/R3/2000. On 17.04.2002, the Assistant Director sent a letter to the Joint Director stating that there are some defects in the certificates and that the same has to be rectified. The petitioner has also rectified the defects pointed out by the Assistant Director. Thereafter, he was directed to give his willingness in furtherance about the selection process and he was also directed to furnish the entire records to the Higher Authorities for consideration, by subsequent proceedings of the respondent. Though the petitioner submitted all the original records, he was periodically informed that his turn for sponsoring the employment was not reached. 2(ii) After submission of records, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent that the Government has banned all the recruitment to the public services. However, once again the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner stating that his name was empanelled in the list of eligible compassionate appointment candidates and he was assigned serial number as 332. 2(ii) After submission of records, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent that the Government has banned all the recruitment to the public services. However, once again the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner stating that his name was empanelled in the list of eligible compassionate appointment candidates and he was assigned serial number as 332. Thereafter, on 07.06.2006, the respondent called for the original certificates and other connected records for selection process as per the proceedings of the respondent. After the said communication, the petitioner received another communication from the respondent stating that the respondent wants to verify and clarify from the Government as to whether the candidate, whom gave a representation after three years from the date of death of the Government employee, can be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground. 2(iii) Finally on 13.03.2009, the respondent passed an order in Na.Ka.No.39611/EE2/06 stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground because of reflex of time after death of his father. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ petition has been filed. 3. When the matter is taken for consideration, the petitioner made detailed submissions adverting to the averments made in the affidavit. Furthermore, he has also invited the attention of this Court, to a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995 and submitted that the said Government Order clearly shows that three years period specified to submit an application for the appointment on compassionate ground, is applicable only to the dependants of the Government servants who died while in service on or after 26.06.1995 and the said order is not applicable to the past cases. 4. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner's father died on 01.11.1991 and hence, the date of death of his father is much earlier to the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995. The three years period fixed for submitting the application from the date of death of the Government employee cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. But without considering these aspects the respondent has rejected the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment. 5. The three years period fixed for submitting the application from the date of death of the Government employee cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. But without considering these aspects the respondent has rejected the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment. 5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.323 and 718 of 2015, dated 10.06.2015, in the case of the Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai Vs. G.Karthiban and A.P.Chandramathi and submitted that in an identical situation, this Court has directed the appellant to consider the application of the respondents in that case on merits and to give appointment if otherwise the respondents are found eligible. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that by inviting the attention of this Court, a Letter that was issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Chennai, in Letter(Ms)No.202, dated 08.10.2007, stating that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, wherein it has been stated that three years period is fixed for submitting an application for compassionate ground from the date of death of the Government employee, subsequently, in the said letter, it has been stated that the time limit of three years for filing an application from the date of death of the Government employee would be applicable to all the cases including where the Government Servant has died in service even prior to 26.06.1995 also. 7. Further the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in the present case the three years period is fixed for seeking appointment on compassionate appointment would apply. In the instant case, though the petitioner's father died on 01.11.1991 much earlier to the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, as per the Letter issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Chennai, in Letter(Ms)No.202, dated 08.10.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, admittedly, he has not submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three years from the date of death of his father/Government employee and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. 8. In the present case, admittedly, he has not submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three years from the date of death of his father/Government employee and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. 8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of the entire materials available on records, it is seen that by considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent has called for Certificate verification and the petitioner has also produced the original certificates. Thereafter, on 07.06.2006, the respondent once again called for the original certificates as well as other connected records for selection process, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2546/A/06. Hence, the respondent cannot say that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reliance in the Judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.323 and 718 of 2015, dated 10.06.2015, in the case of the Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai Vs. G.Karthiban and A.P.Chandramathi, wherein, this Court has held as follows:- “7. It is not in dispute that applications of the Writ petitioners, though filed after three years, were entertained. The Writ petitioners were directed to submit requisite certificates, which they duly did. The Writ petitioners were further asked to submit their willingness for training. They faithfully complied with the order and submitted their willingness. The petitioners were asked to submit original certificates for verification. Thus, steps on the part of authorities gave a clear indication that the applications of the petitioners were entertained despite some delay in making applications. After such a long period, the applications could not have been rejected on the ground of being filed belatedly. 8. One cannot forget the fact that if the head of the family dies, leaving widow and the children without any source of livelihood, the dependence are always in need of some compassion and some succor from the employer. Accordingly, a policy was framed by the Government, stipulating that the application three years. No doubt, in this case, the applications were filed belatedly. Accordingly, a policy was framed by the Government, stipulating that the application three years. No doubt, in this case, the applications were filed belatedly. But, once applications were taken into consideration and the Writ petitioners were given hope that they may be appointed against the vacancy available in due course of time, the same could not have been rejected subsequently in August, 2009 on the ground of delay. We are, thus, unable to take contrary view then that of the one taken by the learned Single Judge. What the learned Single Judge has directed was, not to give appointment directly, but to consider the applications on merit and give appointment, if otherwise they are found eligible. The order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal, valid and in accordance with the well settled principles of law, warranting no interference.” 10. The said Judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also. In the present case, the petitioner was called for verification of original certificates for selection process. In such circumstances, the respondent can not say that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.323 and 718 of 2015, dated 10.06.2015, in the case of the Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai Vs. G.Karthiban and A.P.Chandramathi, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.39611/EE2/06, dated 13.03.2009 is quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on merits and to give appointment if otherwise he is found eligible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.