The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of an employee, and a humane outlook should be adopted in considering cases for compassionate appointments, especially in cases of indigent circumstances.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in letter No.SE/KGC/MIN/001915-66/Nee Pe.2/wc 1/2005, dated 22. 2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein in any suitable post on compassionate ground in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board with all monetary and service benefits.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners father M.Marutha Raj was working as Vehicle Helper with the respondent. The petitioners father died on 210. 1999, while he was in service. After the death of the petitioners father, the petitioners brother submitted an application on 24. 2002 for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was not considered by the respondents on the ground that her brother has not passed 8th Standard. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 6. 2002 through certificate of posting. Again, the petitioners mother submitted a representation for the petitioners appointment to the respondent in person on 5. 2005 and on 9. 2004, The second respondent issued a letter on 19. 2004 stating that they have not received any application within three years from the date of death of her father and the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment is registered in his office on 30.10.2004. The petitioner submitted a representation along with her application dated 6. 2002 with a proof to show the certificate of posting. The said representation was acknowledged by the second respondent on 11. 2004 and the same was rejected by the impugned order. Again, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 4. 2005, which was also acknowledged by the first respondent on 14. 2005 and the respondents failed to take any action. Hence, this writ petition was filed with the above said prayer.

.4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit and denied the receipt of the application dated 6. 2002 and also stated that the application now pending was made beyond three years and therefore, the same cannot be considered as per Board Proceedings dated 15. 1995.

.5. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2006 (9) SUPREME COURT CASES 195 (Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others) considered a similar issue as to whether a minor claimant seeking compassionate appointment can apply for a post on compassionate grounds after attaining majority. In paragraph-5 of the judgment, it is held as follows:-

."5. .... When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependants are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application."

6. Identical issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in P. RAJAMANI VS. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENNAI reported in 2006 LAB.I.C. 4163. In paragraph-6 of the judgment, it is held as follows:-

"6. Having heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are not able to appreciate and accept the stand of the respondents. We hasten to state that the very purport of extending a helping hand to a destitute on the death of her husband by way of compassionate appointment would get defeated if such claims are turned down on such hyper-technical ground. In the case on hand, as noted earlier, after the death of the appellants husband on 111. 1996, an application was made on 4