ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment vide letter No.HRD/IR/F.No.117DD/06/D.No.181/10, dated 27.3.2010. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondents. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner while working as Lineman in Respondent Corporation died on 16.06.2004 in harness. Initially, the son of the petitioner viz., Sri D. Suresh applied for the compassionate appointment and he was called for an interview on 25.07.2008 and 29.08.2008 by the respondents along with no earning member certificate. But, due to sudden demise of his father, he has become mentally imbalance and his health is not in good condition and as such, he has not attended to the interview and requested the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner by his representation, dated 06.06.2009. As her son has not attended for interview and his health condition does not permit to do that job provided to him, the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondents to consider her case for appointment on any suitable post on compassionate grounds. The 2nd respondent vide Memo No.SE/O/SKL/DE/T/Adm/PO/JAO/A1/D.No.1484/09, dated 22.05.2009, returned the proposal to resubmit the same after attending to the remarks immediately for onward 1st resubmission to Corporate Office. Accordingly, the respondent vide Memo No.DEE/O/SKL/O/Adm/JAO/U1/D.No.685/2009, dated 28.05.2009 directed the petitioner to submit reasons for non attending for interview by her son on 27.07.2008 and 29.08.2008 though he was appointed and to submit “no earning member certificate” from the petitioner. 5. On receipt of the same, the son of the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 06.06.2009 to the 1st respondent informing that due to his ill-health, he did not attend the interview scheduled on 27.07.2008 and 29.08.2008 and he requested to provide appointment to his mother instead of him. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 31.10.2008 to the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 31.10.2008 to the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was not considered holding that the petitioner is not entitled for employment under dependents of deceased quota on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted her proposal for providing employment within one year from the date of death of the employee, which is an essential condition and prerequisite condition for providing employment under compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is contended that originally the case of the son of the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment basing on the consent letter submitted by the petitioner stating that there is no objection for appointment of her son. The son of the petitioner Sri D. Suresh was allotted to the Srikakulam Circle to the eligible post of Watchman. As per his representation, he was called for an interview on 25.07.2008, but he has not attended for interview. The petitioner submitted a representation that her son is not available at present and requested to permit him to attend the interview after 15 days. Considering her request, the interview was postponed to 29.08.2008. The son of the petitioner submitted a representation that he is not willing to do the job and requested to consider the case of his mother Smt. D. Rajulamma for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a job proposal for considering her case for compassionate appointment along with the consent letter from her son Sri D. Suresh, in which it was stated that he is unable to do the job due to ill-health. The said application is received in the 1st respondent office on 31.10.2008 i.e., nearly 4 years 4 months from the date of death of the deceased employee. 7. It is further contended that as per the rules in vogue the application should reach in their office within one year from the date of death of the deceased. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 27.03.2010 on the ground that it was submitted after more than 4 years period. 8. 7. It is further contended that as per the rules in vogue the application should reach in their office within one year from the date of death of the deceased. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 27.03.2010 on the ground that it was submitted after more than 4 years period. 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, the admitted facts emerges that the father of the petitioner died on 16.06.2004 in harness. At that time he was working as Lineman in the Respondent Corporation. It is also an admitted fact that the dependents of the deceased employee are entitled for compassionate appointment subject to certain conditions. Consequent to the death of the husband of the petitioner, her son Sri D. Suresh submitted representation to the respondents to appointment him on compassionate grounds. The petitioner herein submitted her consent letter stating that there is no objection in appointing her son in the department as her son is only the male person available in her family. The respondents considered their request and her son Sri D. Suresh has been allotted to the Srikakulam Circle to the eligible post of Watchman. 9. Later, on 24.07.2008 the respondents issued a letter calling him to attend for the interview on 25.07.2008 along with “no earning member certificate”. But, he did not attend for the interview on that day. Again he was called for to attend an interview on 29.08.2008 on that day also he did not attend. But, he submitted a representation stating that he is not willing to do the job due to ill-health and requested to consider the case of his mother Smt. D. Rajulamma i.e., the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner herein submitted an application on 31.10.2008. The said application was rejected on 27.03.2010 by the respondents on the ground that it is time barred. 10. The scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased Government employees is in force from the year, 1977 as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dt.03.10.1977. Certain instructions/ clarifications/further orders were issued from time to time in the matter. A comprehensive note on the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees is consolidated vide Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003. Certain instructions/ clarifications/further orders were issued from time to time in the matter. A comprehensive note on the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees is consolidated vide Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003. In fact, it appears that the Respondent Corporation has been adopted the scheme of compassionate appointments and instructions issued time to time by the State Government. 11. The objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to help families of deceased Government employees. Under the scheme, one of the dependent family members of the deceased government employee, who die in harness, is eligible for appointment to a job in a government service there being no other earning member in the family. 12. The maximum age limit shall be 33 years for Open Category, and for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Backward Classes 5 years age concession shall be given. With regard to the educational qualifications, the qualifications as prescribed in the Rules for the post for which the compassionate appointment is made. The eligibility of the candidate in terms of his/her educational qualification has to be reckoned with the date of application of the dependent of the deceased government employee for appointment, as the application for appointment from such persons shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of occurrence of the death of Government servant. The application for appointment shall be submitted by the dependents within one year from the date of demise of the Government employee. In case the dependent children are minors, below 18 years of age, if such minors attain the age of 18 years within two years from the date of death, the application for appointment will be considered for compassionate appointment. 13. As the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family in distress of deceased Government employee, orders on re-deployment of surplus manpower or any ban on recruitment are not applicable for the appointment made under the compassionate appointment scheme. 13. As the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family in distress of deceased Government employee, orders on re-deployment of surplus manpower or any ban on recruitment are not applicable for the appointment made under the compassionate appointment scheme. Under the scheme a minimum period of 3 years to acquire Intermediate qualification and 5 years for acquisition of Degree qualification be allowed in respect of candidates appointed to the posts of Junior Assistants in the Subordinate Offices and Heads of Departments and Secretariat Departments as the case may be, the period should be reckoned from the date of appointment of the individual concerned. A further period of 2 years as grace period will be allowed to acquire the academic/Technical qualification. If the candidate could not acquire the prescribed qualification within the time allowed he/she will be considered for appointment to the lower post. 14. On careful examination of the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who die in harness and the relaxations provided with regard to the age if the dependent is a minor and certain relaxation provided to acquire requisite qualifications, it has to be noted that with a noble object to help the families in distress of deceased employees, this scheme was introduced by the government and adopted by the respondents which is laudable. But, it has to be considered that the dependents of the deceased employees in every case may not be aware about the scheme and the stipulation of time to submit application and other conditions. Besides that due to untimely death of the bread winner of the family, the dependents of the deceased employee may be in a disturbed and sorrowful condition and it will take some time to them to come out into normal condition. Due to that reason, some delay may be occurred in submitting the application. The respondents ought to have considered the situation of the family of the deceased employee in a sympathetic way and with human touch and not only being followed by the technicalities. 15. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner expired on 16.06.2004 in harness. Due to that reason, some delay may be occurred in submitting the application. The respondents ought to have considered the situation of the family of the deceased employee in a sympathetic way and with human touch and not only being followed by the technicalities. 15. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner expired on 16.06.2004 in harness. Though the date of the application submitted by the son of the petitioner herein i.e., Sri D. Suresh seeking compassionate appointment was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in this writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and also in the letters, dated 27.03.2010, 28.085.2009 and 22.05.2009 of the respondents. 16. On perusal of the correspondence made between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide Letter No.HRD/IR/F.No.117DD/06/D.No.181/10, dated 27.03.2010, Memo No.DEE/O/SKL/Adm/JAO/U1/D.No.685/2009, dated 28.05.2009 and Memo No.SE/O/SKL/DE/T/Adm/PO/JAO/ A1/D.No.1484/09, dated 22.05.2009, it reveals that on consideration of the representation submitted by the son of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, his claim was considered by the respondents and as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the son of the petitioner was allotted to the Srikakulam Circle to the eligible post of Watchman and he was asked to attend an interview with “no earning member certificate” on 25.07.2008 and 29.08.2008. These facts prove that the son of the petitioner submitted application within the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. 17. Thereafter, it appears due to ill-health, the son of the petitioner is not in a position to do the job and he requested the respondents to consider the case of his mother i.e., the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate grounds. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application on 31.10.2008 to appoint her instead of his son in any suitable post on compassionate grounds due to death of her husband. But, the respondents rejected her claim on the ground it was not submitted within the stipulated period of one year. 18. The stand of the respondents appears to be incorrect in holding that the application of the petitioner is time barred. If it is first time an application, dated 31.10.2008 submitted by the family of the deceased employee to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment after demise of deceased employee, who died on 16.06.2004, definitely, the ground taken by the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner would be correct. If it is first time an application, dated 31.10.2008 submitted by the family of the deceased employee to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment after demise of deceased employee, who died on 16.06.2004, definitely, the ground taken by the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner would be correct. But in the present case, initially the family of the petitioner after sudden demise of their bread winner, as Sri D. Suresh, the son of the petitioner is only male person available in the family, submitted proposal to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds and the petitioner also gave her no objection in appointing her son. Therefore, there was an application seeking compassionate appointment from the family of the petitioner within stipulated time after death of her husband. Only after her son declined to join that job due to his ill-health, the petitioner made application on 31.10.2008 to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. As such, the respondents ought not to have considered the application, dated 31.10.2008 submitted by the petitioner as first application submitted seeking appointment on compassionate grounds for the untimely death of the husband of the petitioner. As her son not joined that job due to health reasons only, the petitioner submitted application on 31.10.2008 to consider her case. As such, the contention of the respondents that the application submitted by the petitioner is time barred for consideration on the ground that as more than 4 years period elapsed is untenable and unsustainable. 19. The respondents ought to have considered the indigent condition of the family and all other aspects (i.e) the bread winner of the family unfortunately met with premature death resulting into untold financial sufferings for the entire family. It appears, the respondents have completely lost sight of this aspect of the matter while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It appears the respondents without considering all the aspects in a comprehensive manner only on technicalities rejected the representation of the petitioner to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. 20. The sudden jerk in the family due to the sudden death of the bread winner can only be absorbed by providing with a compassionate appointment and the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony they have suffered. 21. This Court is unable to agree with the stand of the respondents. 20. The sudden jerk in the family due to the sudden death of the bread winner can only be absorbed by providing with a compassionate appointment and the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony they have suffered. 21. This Court is unable to agree with the stand of the respondents. In the opinion of this Court, if such claims are rejected on such technical grounds, the very object of scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families would be defeated. 22. The view of this Court had fortified from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , in which their Lordships held as hereunder: “In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.” 23. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: 7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 24. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 24. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order, dated 27.03.2010 for sudden demise of the bread winner of the family in harness. 25. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in their Corporation in any suitable post within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.