JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the respondent's proceedings Na.No.E5/7374/2011 dated 08.04.2011, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to compassionate ground.) 1. The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to quash the respondent's proceedings in Na.No.E5/7374/2011 dated 08.04.2011 and direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father Govind araj died in harness on 29.05.1991 as a Post-graduate teacher, at Government Nandana (Boys) Higher Secondary School, Cuddalore. At the time of the death the petitioner was studying 8th standard. The terminal benefits of the petitioner's father was not settled due to a dispute between petitioner's mother Mrs.G.Kasturi and Mrs.Anantha Nayaki, who had staked her claim for the benefits on the ground that she was married to the father of the petitioner as second wife. After a prolonged dispute a quietus came to be arrived by entering into a compromise consequent upon demise of the second wife of the petitioner's father thereby the benefits came to be settled in favour of the petitioner's mother and the two children namely the petitioner and his younger brother Thiru Banu Gopalan. In the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner, a copy of the compromise decree came to be enclosed wherein it was arrived at a consensus that it would be open to the petitioner to lay his claim for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. An application seeking appointment on compassionate ground came to be made during January 2001, which was directed to be presented in the prescribed proforma and on compliance of the same, the District Aadi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore, in and by proceedings in K.No.A1/317/2001 dated 14.03.2001 forwarded the same to the respondent. But the respondent mechanically and also without application of mind had rejected the application of the petitioner by proceedings dated 22.08.2008 on the premises that the Government Letter No.202 Labour and Employment Department dated 08.10.2007 had prescribed three years from the date of the death of individual had rejected the petitioner's application. But the respondent mechanically and also without application of mind had rejected the application of the petitioner by proceedings dated 22.08.2008 on the premises that the Government Letter No.202 Labour and Employment Department dated 08.10.2007 had prescribed three years from the date of the death of individual had rejected the petitioner's application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner once again represented with the reference to the said reconsideration application. The respondent's department had sought for certain particulars through its letter dated 06.08.2009 to which the petitioner had replied enclosing all material documents for his claim on compassionate ground appointment, since the delay not at all been attributable to him and more particularly to his case since the dispute between the first and second wife got settled only during 2001 and immediately thereafter the claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been made well within three years. Since the above representation was not considered by the respondent the petitioner filed W.P.No.1777 of 2011. 3. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner given clarification dated 30.09.2009 which was with reference to the respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.E5/215050/2009 dated 06.08.2009. Since the same was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1777 of 2011 for a direction to consider the claim for compassionate ground appointment on the basis of the clarificatory representation dated 30.09.2009. This Court directed the respondent to pass orders and in pursuant to the said direction the respondent has chosen to reject the claim of the petitioner once again on the ground of delay by referring to the Government Letter which was and can have prospective application and also stating that recent Government Orders are against consideration of the claim of the petitioner which on the face of records is without application. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that as per the G.O (Ms).No.120, Labour and Employment, dated 26.06.1995 in para 2 it is clearly clarified that, “(1) The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the death of the Government servants”. In this case the application was belatedly submitted after the lapse of 10 years from the date of demise of the father of the petitioner on 29.05.1991. In this case the application was belatedly submitted after the lapse of 10 years from the date of demise of the father of the petitioner on 29.05.1991. In the Government Letter No.202 Labour and Employment Department dated 08.10.2007 states that “the crux of matter is that, the time limit shall be three years for filing of application from the date of death of the Government Servant and it is applicable to all cases, including where the Government Servant has died in service even prior to 26.06.1995 also”. The application ought to have been made on or before 28.05.1994 whereas in the present case the petitioner was made on 13.03.2001 which is after the lapse of 10 years is not admissible as per the Government Rules. 6. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner died on 29.05.1991 and the application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted only on 13.03.2001 which is after the lapse of 10 years and as per the above Government Order the same is not maintainable in law, i.e., after the delay of 10 years and not within three years period as stipulated in the Government Orders referred supra. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent's proceedings in Na.No.E5/7374/2011 dated 08.04.2011 and the same is hereby confirmed. 9. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.