JUDGMENT : [Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] The official respondents in W.P(MD)No.12722 of 2014, are the appellants. 2. The respondent / writ petitioner filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents / appellants for providing compassionate ground appointment, on account of the demise of her mother namely Devaki, who was employed as Sanitary Worker under the second respondent. 3. The said writ petition after contest, came to be disposed of with certain positive directions and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. The respondent / writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would among other things aver that her mother namely Devaki was in the services of the office of the second respondent as Sanitary Worker for more than 2 ½ decades and she died in harness on 20.10.2010 leaving behind her father namely Selvaraj aged about 61 years and two daughters namely Maheswari and the writ petitioner and her brother namely Arivalagan died predeceased her mother on 04.09.2010. 5. It is further averred that her married sister Maheswari has also given no objection and though the respondent / writ petitioner got married to one Umamaheswaran, they are residing at Jeyamkondan and her husband is an uneducated person and eking out his livelihood as a Cooli and is also taking care of her father Selvaraj and also undertakes to take care of him till he breathes his last and the repeated representations submitted by the petitioner did not yield any fruitful result and therefore, she came forward to file the writ petition and it was entertained. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and took a stand that admittedly, the respondent / writ petitioner got married on 03.11.2003 while her mother was alive ie., seven years prior to her demise and that apart, the husband of the deceased Devaki / father of the respondent / writ petitioner, is receiving family pension of his wife and as such, it cannot be stated that they are in the stage of penury and that apart, the request of the respondent / writ petitioner also came to be rejected on 10.07.2014 by the first appellant / first respondent and in the absence of challenge to the same, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. 7. The learned Judge after taking note of the factual aspect as well as the judgment reported in 2008 (5) CTC 785 (G.Girija vs. the Assistant Director (Panchayats) Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District and others), the order dated 23.04.2013 in W.P(MD)No.6763 of 2013 and also the reported decision in 2014 (1) LLN 515 (Mad.) (R.Kanagasanthi vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation), found that the reason for rejection that the respondent / writ petitioner is married, cannot be a tenable ground and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition with certain directions vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 and aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants / Corporation would submit that the request made by the respondent / writ petitioner, came to be rejected by the office of the first respondent on 10.07.2014 and though the said fact has been pointed out in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the respondent / writ petitioner did not choose to amend the prayer and as such, the writ petition is per se not maintainable. 9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment (Q2) Department, dated 30.08.2010 that admittedly, the respondent / writ petitioner got married while her was alive and they are living separately at Jeyamkondan and as far as the undertaking that she would take care of his father is concerned, it is only a formal one and therefore, the claim of the respondent / writ petitioner for compassionate ground appointment was rightly rejected and therefore, the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have upheld the order of the first respondent and prays for interference. 10. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that non-challenging of the order of the first respondent dated 10.07.2014, is a genuine mistake and admittedly, the respondent / writ petitioner is having poor economic background and even as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 30.08.2010, she has also given an undertaking in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to the maintenance of her father and the learned Judge has taken note of the various decisions rendered in this regard and also the background facts and has rightly disposed of the writ petition with certain directions and would further add that the respondent / writ petitioner continues to experience great difficulty and hardship, especially in the light of Covid – 19 Pandemic virus and prays for dismissal of this writ appeal. 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 12. The Labour and Employment (Q2) Department, in G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 30.08.2010, has taken into consideration the decisions rendered by this Court, which laid a proposition that the marriage of a daughter is not a bar to submit an application seeking compassionate ground appointment and in tune with the said decisions, the said Government Order came to be passed. 13. A careful scrutiny and perusal of the said Government Order would also disclose that there is no specific bar on the part of a married daughter to submit an application seeking compassionate ground appointment and the only requirement is that she should execute an undertaking that she would continue to maintain the family of her parents and the person, who intend to marry the daughter has also to give an undertaking that he will not have any objection for maintaining the parents of the person to be married and the respondent / writ petitioner in Paragraph Nos.4 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had given such kind of undertaking and in Paragraph No.10 would aver that her family is a downtrodden family and they are living in hand to mouth existence and her husband is eking out his livelihood and is earning income as a Coolie and prays for positive orders. 14. 14. No doubt, the order of rejection dated 10.07.2014 passed by the first respondent has not been put to challenge and from the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner, it appears to be a genuine and inadvertent mistake committed by the learned counsel, who drafted the affidavit and for which, the respondent / writ petitioner cannot be denied the relief. 15. The sole ground for denial of the request of the respondent / writ petitioner is with regard to the marital status of the respondent / writ petitioner and in the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the decisions relied on by the learned Judge coupled with G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment (Q2) Department, dated 30.08.2010, the said stand taken on the part of the first respondent is wholly untenable and it also appears from the order of the first respondent dated 10.07.2014 that except the disqualification of being a married daughter, no other reasons have been assigned, which means the financial status and difficulties pleaded by the respondent / writ petitioner have not been doubted. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge on a careful scrutiny and perusal of the materials placed and also by applying the proposition laid down in the decisions rendered by this Court, has rightly reached the conclusion and passed appropriate orders. 17. This Court on an independent application of mind to the materials placed and upon hearing the rival submissions, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned for disposing of the writ petition with certain directions. 18. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 19.09.2018 passed in W.P(MD)No.12722 of 2014. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 19. The appellants / respondents are granted eight weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to comply with the order, dated 19.09.2018 passed in W.P(MD)No.12722 of 2014, as confirmed by this judgment passed in this writ appeal and communicate the decision taken to the respondent / writ petitioner.