JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in Pa.Mu.No.7230/Aa1/08 dated 16.12.2008 and the consequential order in O.Mu.No.1913/Aa1/09 dated 29.03.2010 both passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint petitioner, on compassionate ground.) 1. The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order in Pa.Mu.No.7230/Aa1/08 dated 16.12.2008 and the consequential order in O.Mu.No.1913/Aa1/09 dated 29.03.2010 both passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents, to appoint the petitioner, on compassionate ground. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner's father Mr.K.Vaiyapuri had died on 01.01.1996 while he was working as Weaving Instructor in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Saravanapakkam of Tiruvennainalur Union in Villupuram District. The petitioner's father had two wives. The first wife of the petitioner's father had died as early as in the year 1972. Mr.Ramalingam, only son who born through the first wife of petitioner's deceased father got married in the year 1995 and he is living with his wife separately. The petitioner's mother is the second wife of his father. The petitioner and his two sisters were born through the second wife of the petitioner's deceased father. 2.1. After the death of petitioner's father, the said Ramalingam got a government job as Secondary Grade Teacher on 30.08.1997. The petitioner was 16 years old, when his father had died. Since the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam is living with his family separately, he is not supporting the petitioner's family financially. The petitioner's mother made an application dated 15.09.1997 before the District Collector, Villupuram, seeking appointment to the petitioner under Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but, she was orally informed that her son (petitioner) was minor and therefore, he cannot be given appointment in Government Service. 2.2. The petitioner's mother made an application dated 15.09.1997 before the District Collector, Villupuram, seeking appointment to the petitioner under Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but, she was orally informed that her son (petitioner) was minor and therefore, he cannot be given appointment in Government Service. 2.2. After the petitioner attained the age of majority, he made a representation dated 03.09.2001 along with relevant documents, to the District Educational Officer, Tindivanam, seeking employment on compassionate ground, however, his representation was rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2008, on the ground that the family of indigent circumstances has to be given employment immediately after the death of a Government Servant and further, as per G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, already one of the members of the family is in employment and therefore, the application for compassionate appointment submitted by another member of the same family cannot be considered. The first respondent has indirectly stated about his elder brother Ramalingam who is in Government Service. 2.3. Actually, the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam got appointment after the death of the petitioner's father but he was living with his wife separately, even when his father was alive. Moreover, he is not connected with the family of the petitioner since he is the son of the first wife of petitioner's father. So, explaining these facts, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to reconsider the proceedings dated 16.12.2008. But, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 29.03.2010, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the following reasons: (i) Petitioner was minor when his father had died and post cannot be kept vacant till he attains majority nor he could be appointed being a minor. So, as per G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, elder brother of the petitioner has got appointment in the year 1997. (ii) Since the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam is also a member of the petitioner's family, appointment cannot be given to petitioner. 2.4. The first respondent has instructed the second respondent to inform the petitioner that his representation has been rejected for the aforesaid reasons. But, the second respondent has not passed any order, stating the reasons mentioned by the first respondent in proceedings dated 29.03.2010. After a great difficulty, the petitioner got a copy of the proceedings dated 29.03.2010 passed by the first respondent. But, the second respondent has not passed any order, stating the reasons mentioned by the first respondent in proceedings dated 29.03.2010. After a great difficulty, the petitioner got a copy of the proceedings dated 29.03.2010 passed by the first respondent. Thereafter, challenging the proceedings dated 16.12.2008 and 29.03.2010 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the reason that one of the member of his family is working as Secondary Grade Teacher and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground. As per G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, the petitioner is not eligible for getting appointment on compassionate ground. But, in this case, the petitioner's elder brother who got appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher is the son of first wife of the petitioner's father and petitioner is the son of second wife of the petitioner's father. While the petitioner's father was alive, the elder brother of the petitioner got married and settled with his wife separately. 3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proceedings dated 16.12.2008 passed by the first respondent, does not disclosed any finding that the elder brother of the petitioner who got appointment is looking after the indigent family by giving monetary assistance. After the death of petitioner's father, the petitioner's family is not getting any assistance from the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam.. Still the petitioner's family is struggling financially. Even in the midst of such indigent circumstances, the petitioner has passed SSLC and completed B.Lit., degree. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a time as stipulated by this Court. 3.2. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions: (i) M.Vijayakumar vs. The Director of School Education and Ors. [W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2017 dated 12.03.2021] [MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT] (ii) C.Jayapal vs. The Director of Medical Education and Ors. reported in 2005 (5) CTC 655 (ii) S.Selvipalaniammal vs. Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukottai District [W.P.(MD) No.7929 of 2005 dated 07.08.2006] [MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT] 4. [W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2017 dated 12.03.2021] [MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT] (ii) C.Jayapal vs. The Director of Medical Education and Ors. reported in 2005 (5) CTC 655 (ii) S.Selvipalaniammal vs. Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukottai District [W.P.(MD) No.7929 of 2005 dated 07.08.2006] [MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT] 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in this case, the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam got married and employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Koovagam of Tirunavalur Union. 4.1. He further submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981, it has been specifically stated that if there is already any earning member in the family of the Government servant who died in harness, the other dependent of the deceased Government servant will not be eligible for the concession of appointment in Government departments and Government undertakings without reference to Employment Exchange. 4.2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also submitted that since the first wife of petitioner's father was not alive, petitioner's mother is the first legal heir of the deceased Vaiyapuri (petitioner's father). Though the petitioner's mother is the first legal heir of the petitioner's deceased father, she had not made any application, seeking to appoint her under compassionate ground. But the petitioner (fifth legal heir of the deceased Vaiyapuri (petitioner's father)) had made an application for compassionate ground appointment that too on 03.09.2001, even though he attained the age of majority 5 years and nine months before. Therefore, the first respondent has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Even, thereafter, the petitioner has submitted applications before the first respondent, in the year 2008 and 2009, but, the same were returned by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2008 and 29.03.2010 respectively. Since the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under compassionate ground, the first respondent has rightly rejected his applications. Therefore, the aforesaid proceedings issued by the first respondent are absolutely correct. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner's father had died on 01.01.1996, while he was in service. The petitioner was minor, when his father had died. Therefore, the aforesaid proceedings issued by the first respondent are absolutely correct. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner's father had died on 01.01.1996, while he was in service. The petitioner was minor, when his father had died. After the death of petitioner's father, his second wife (petitioner's mother) had made an application 15.09.1997 before the District Collector, Villupuram, seeking employment to her son (petitioner) on compassionate ground, but, she was informed that since her son (petitioner) was minor, appointment cannot be given to him. So, after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 03.09.2001 along with relevant documents, before the first respondent, seeking for appointment on compassionate ground, but, his application was rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2008, for the reason that already one of his family members was given appointment in Government. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner made another application before the first respondent to reconsider the proceedings dated 16.12.2008, however, the same was also rejected. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court with this writ petition. 7. The issue involved in this case is that since one of the dependent of the deceased Government servant viz., Ramalingam (son of the first wife of petitioner's father) has already got appointment in Government, the application submitted by the petitioner, for compassionate appointment was rejected by the first respondent. 8. From a perusal of the documents available on record, it is seen that the said Ramalingam (son of first wife of the petitioner's father) had got married in the year 1995 and settled with his wife separately, even before the death of his father. Further, the said Ramalingam got appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher on 30.08.1997, on his own. After the death of petitioner's father, petitioner, his mother and his two sisters were financially struggling a lot and the said Ramalingam did not extend any monetary help to them. Since the said Ramalingam was living separately with his wife, he is not connected with the petitioner's family. 9. The legal heirs of the deceased Government servant (petitioner's father) are as follows: (i) Tmt.Saroja (2nd wife of deceased Govt. servant) (ii) Thiru.V.Ramalingam (son of 1st wife of deceased Govt. Since the said Ramalingam was living separately with his wife, he is not connected with the petitioner's family. 9. The legal heirs of the deceased Government servant (petitioner's father) are as follows: (i) Tmt.Saroja (2nd wife of deceased Govt. servant) (ii) Thiru.V.Ramalingam (son of 1st wife of deceased Govt. servant) (iii) Tmt.Theivanai (1st daughter of 2nd wife of deceased Govt. servant) (iv) Tmt.Radha (2nd daughter of 2nd wife of deceased Govt. servant) (v) Thiru.Anandraj (son of 2nd wife of deceased Govt. servant) (vi) Thiru.Krishnan (father of deceased Govt. servant) 10. Out of the above legal heirs of the deceased Government servant, Ramalingam and Theivanai were married before the death of their father, whereas, Radha and Anandraj got married after the death of their father. The said Ramalingam has got a Government job as early as in the year 1997 and now, he is living with his wife separately, whereas, the family of Anandraj (petitioner) is in poverty since he has no permanent job. 11. Regarding the request made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the second respondent has conducted an enquiry After the completion of said enquiry, the second respondent has sent a communication dated 12.06.2009 to the first respondent, wherein, it is clearly stated that the petitioner is staying in his own house with his mother and their family is in poverty. It is also stated that no one in their family is in government job and that apart, their only source of income is the pension which they are receiving after the death of petitioner's father. 12. The first respondent vide proceedings dated 29.03.2010, has rejected the request of the petitioner for the reasons that (i) At the time of the death of petitioner's father, petitioner has failed in SSLC, but, he sought appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. (ii) The petitioner's date of birth is 23.08.1979. The petitioner's father has died on 01.01.1996. So, on 15.09.1997, the date on which the petitioner's mother made an application to the District Collector, Tindivanam, the petitioner was 16 years old minor. Hence, there is no need to reserve one post to the dependent till he/she attains majority for compassionate appointment. (ii) The petitioner's date of birth is 23.08.1979. The petitioner's father has died on 01.01.1996. So, on 15.09.1997, the date on which the petitioner's mother made an application to the District Collector, Tindivanam, the petitioner was 16 years old minor. Hence, there is no need to reserve one post to the dependent till he/she attains majority for compassionate appointment. (iii) As per G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, request for appointment on compassionate ground made by the other dependent of the deceased Government servant can be considered only in the cases where the dependent of the deceased Government servant got appointment before the death of the Government servant and living separately. In this case, Mr.Ramalingam, legal heir of the deceased Government servant got appointment on 30.08.1997. 13. As stated in the impugned proceedings, the petitioner had failed in SSLC Public Examination which was held in March 1996, but, later, he passed the said exam by private appearance held during October 1996. So, only after passing the SSLC Public Examination, the petitioner made an application to the post of Junior Assistant under compassionate ground. 14. In the case of M.Vijayakumar vs. The Director of School Education and Ors. in W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2017 dated 12.03.2021, the Madurai Bench of this Court has held as follows: “32. In the upshot, the following directions are issued : (i) Since in the instant case, the authorities failed to pass any order in the said application filed by the mother of the appellant and the subsequent application was made on 13.02.2000 in the place of earlier one by the appellant, the reasons assigned by the first respondent in rejecting the application are not only unacceptable, cogent, convincing, plausible, but also contradictory and the same is, accordingly, liable to be set aside. (ii) Since the appointment on compassionate ground is permissible only in the last category of Class-III or Class-IV posts, wherever there is vacancy, the legal heir of the deceased Government Servant should be accommodated in the same or nearby place, where their deceased father/mother had served, so as to allow them not to incur any additional monetary burden of undertaking a journey to the new workplace. In this regard, the guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms.)No.18, on 23.01.2020, shall be adhered to in letter and spirit. In this regard, the guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms.)No.18, on 23.01.2020, shall be adhered to in letter and spirit. (iii) The Government may, at their wisdom, incorporate suitable clauses in the scheme for assessing the circumstances of the family of the deceased Government Servant/s, in cases, where, at the time of the calamity, one of the children or both the children were at their tender age and no one of them could submit the application for compassionate appointment within the period of three years from the date of death of their parents, and after subjective satisfaction of the Appointing Authority / Head of the Department at the Secretariat, they should also be extended the benefit of the scheme, de hors, the stipulation of three years time limit. (iv) The Government of Tamil Nadu should chalk out a plan with necessary instructions to the Officers in the establishment sections to sensitize the family members of the deceased Government servant about the timely submission of the application for compassionate appointment and the enclosures to be made with such application. The Government shall prepare an uniform proforma for seeking compassionate appointment and get it printed in time, and the same shall be circulated to the family of the deceased Government Servant with a direction to submit the same, when they make application seeking terminal benefits. (v) The discretion of the appointing authorities to satisfy themselves about the indigent circumstance of the family of the deceased Government Servant before offering the appointment shall be directed to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. (vi) The Government shall incorporate necessary clauses / clarifications in G.O.(Ms.)No.18, on 23.01.2020, as per the directions of the Full Bench in the order dated 11.03.2020. While doing so, the above directions shall also be implemented suitably. 33. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the Writ Court as well as the order impugned in W.P.(MD)No.476 of 2014 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent to consider the application of the appellant and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months . No Costs.” 15. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent to consider the application of the appellant and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months . No Costs.” 15. At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the order passed in G.O.(Ms).No.18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020 hereinbelow: “The scheme of compassionate ground Appointment was introduced by the Government in the year 1972. Following are the salient features of the scheme. *Employment is to be provided by relaxing the normal procedure of recruitment through employment exchanges to the legal heirs of the Government Servants who dies in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. *It is a welfare measure of the Government to help the legal heirs of the deceased Government Servants appreciating their service rendered by them for the Government. *Compassionate Ground appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a scheme devised by the Government to help the needy legal heirs whose lives are at distress after the Government Servants dies in harness. LEGAL HEIRS / NEAR RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANT / PERSON WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENT (iv) If any person, in the deceased Government Servant's family was employed even before the death of the Government Servant but was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependent will be considered. 16. From a reading of G.O.(Ms).No.18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020, it is crystal clear that one of the eligibility criteria for compassionate ground appointment is if a person in the family of the deceased Government servant was employed even before the death of the Government servant but the said person was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the other eligible dependent in the family of the deceased Government servant will be considered. 17. As far as this case is concerned, it is to be noted that though the said Ramalingam (son of the first wife of deceased Government servant) has got appointment subsequent to the death of his father, he is living with his family separately without extending any help to the petitioner's family. 17. As far as this case is concerned, it is to be noted that though the said Ramalingam (son of the first wife of deceased Government servant) has got appointment subsequent to the death of his father, he is living with his family separately without extending any help to the petitioner's family. Hence, G.O.(Ms).No.18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020 is squarely applicable to the case on hand and the petitioner is eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings issued by the first respondent and allow this writ petition. 19. Accordingly, the proceedings issued by the first respondent in Pa.Mu.No.7230/Aa1/08 dated 16.12.2008 as well as O.Mu.No.1913/Aa1/09 dated 29.03.2010 are hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground either to the post of Junior Assistant for which he has applied or to any post depending upon his educational qualifications, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.