JUDGMENT S. Vaidyanathan, J. The Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents by providing a job to the Petitioner under compassionate grounds for the service rendered by the Petitioner's mother Devaki as Sanitary Worker before the respondents Office until her death during her course of employment. 2. The case of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has already got married seven years prior to the death of her mother, who was an employee in second respondent's office as Sanitary Worker and that the family pension was drawn by the husband. As the Petitioner has already got married seven years prior to the death of her mother, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment is the sum and substance of the case. 3. This Court while dealing with similar issue in W.P(MD)No.10650 of 2018, dated 18.09.2018 held that the amount paid or payable to the deceased employee cannot be taken into account for the purpose of depriving compassionate appointment and those benefits are in any event have to be paid to the dependants/legal heirs of the deceased employee and that cannot be quoted as a reason for not extending the compassionate appointment. In the present case on hand, the employee namely father of the Petitioner is alive and he was drawing the provisional pension and the Petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his mother. The provisional pension/subsistence allowance that was being paid to the petitioner's father cannot at any stretch of imagination be construed to deprive the request of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment. The drawal of the pension due to the petitioner's father cannot deprive the case of the Petitioner being considered for compassionate appointment, if she is otherwise satisfies the required qualification for appointment on compassionate grounds, provided such scheme exists. 4. Further the Petitioner would submit that in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in R. Sivakumari vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam, (2007) 5 CTC 561 , the right to seek employment in Public Services is a valuable right and the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandates that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the post which have fallen vacant, the same aspect has been discussed in detail by the Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 . The petitioner further submitted that the obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. Even though the right to employment was not incorporated in Part III of the Constitution, the Constitution guaranteed to secure its citizens with justice, social, economic and political as well as the quality of the status and in particular the opportunity and that Article 21 of the Constitution comes to her rescue. 5. The petitioner further submitted that in view of the decision reported in G. Girija vs. The Assistant Director (Panchayats), 2008 (5) CTC 686, marriage is not a bar in the case of son, the same yardstick shall be applied in the case of daughter also. It is the duty cast upon the children to take care of the parents at their old age, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, there cannot be any unequal treatment among the children based on sex. The petitioner submitted that G.O.(Ms) No.96, dated 18.6.2012 is unconstitutional, ultra vires of the Constitution, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, hence liable to be quashed. The petitioner further submitted that, fixing a cut-off date, that too only for female legal heirs of deceased employees is nothing but discriminating females from other gender and it is against equality. It is well settled law that equal can be treated as equal and unequals cannot be. In the present case, the petitioner in both ways is equal to others. It is a fact that the petitioner is the only female issue of deceased employee that too from a Scheduled Caste downtrodden family. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that she must be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. When the Government Order decides to treat the son and the daughter on the same footing, fixing a cut off date is not correct. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that she must be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. When the Government Order decides to treat the son and the daughter on the same footing, fixing a cut off date is not correct. That apart, this Court in a decision dated 23.4.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.6763 of 2013 and another decision dated 2.7.2012 in W.P.(MD)No.8686 of 2011, has granted relief to the petitioner, while quashing the impugned order of rejection. The relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted hereunder : "9. As stated above, if a marriage is not a bar in the case of son, the same yardstick shall be applied in the case of daughter also. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the statute, namely, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which places equal duty on both the son and daughter to take care of the parents at the old age. Therefore, in the case of death of the parents, there cannot be any unequal treatment among the children based on sex. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of this Court reported in (G. Girija vs. The Assistant Director (Panchayats), 2008 (5) CTC 686) applies to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Government Servant died on 26.2.1991. The daughter got married on 10.9.2006. She gave an application for compassionate appointment on 2.6.1997. Her application was rejected on the ground that she was married when she gave an application for compassionate appointment. This Court quashed the order declining to give compassionate appointment holding that there cannot be any discrimination between the sons and daughters in the case of giving compassionate appointment. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without reference to the marriage of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in the light of this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 8. The decision in W.P.(MD) No.6763 of 2013 dated 23.4.2013 is also a case where the daughter of the deceased employee got married in 2002 and her father died in 2009. In this case, prior to the demise of her father, the petitioner got married. I had an occasion to consider the case of compassionate appointment which is reported in (Mad.)- R. Kanagasanthi vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, (2014) 1 LLN 515, the relevant paragraph 12 is extracted below :- "12. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out Paragraph No.20 of a decision reported in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 3 LLN 37 (SC) : 2011 (4) SCC 209 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows : Thus while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind :- (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of Rules of Regulations issued by the Government or a Public Authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make Compassionate Appointment de-hors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz., parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.? In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the case of the Appellant by holding that testing on the touchstone of these broad Guidelines governing appointment on compassionate ground, it was of the opinion that the Appellant has made out a case for such appointment. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the Application for compassionate ground appointment was made within the time limit. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the Application for compassionate ground appointment was made within the time limit. It has also been held in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that to provide immediate succor to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner, Compassionate Appointment has got to be made. This has been established by the petitioner. The spirit of the Compassionate Appointment was to provide relief to the family members of the deceased persons and that on yardstick of social justice, such relief cannot be withdrawn retrospectively as the Government stopped appointments for certain periods and when there was a modification, after lifting the ban, the new scheme or modification has to take effect only prospectively. The Writ Petitioner has rightly contended that when there is a change in policy on 5.4.2007, while lifting the Ban, it could not result in denial of Compassionate Appointment to the petitioner, as any change would only be prospective in nature." 9. In the case that was decided in Madurai, the petitioner therein had given the details of her husband. But in the case on hand, the petitioner has given her particulars to the authorities for considering her case for compassionate appointment. However, taking note of the fact that there cannot be any discrimination and there should be uniformity and there cannot be any cut off date, when the Government has decided to consider a man and a woman equally, I hold that the Government Order dated 20.05.2016 impugned in this writ petition in so far as fixing the cut off date is illegal. Since the cut off date fixed by the Government is illegal, the consequential order has to go. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and while allowing the writ petition, I direct the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner in the next vacancy arising in Class-IV only, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and if there are no legal impediments. The order of this Court is directed to be complied with preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.