The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds raised by the respondents were not valid to deny the compassionate appointment, considering the indigent circumstances of the petitioner's family and the series of similar cases where compassionate appointments were granted.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 6.10.2010 in the light of the order in W.A.No.42 of 2007 dated 2.7.2009.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her father was employed as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Karingal Section under the control of the third respondent and he died on 2.8.1991 at the age of 41 years while in service. He left behind him the his mother (petitioner's grandmother), his father (petitioner's grandfather), widow (petitioner's mother), four daughters including the petitioner herein. Petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of the family.

3. On 31.7.1992 the petitioner's mother submitted a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 seeking compassionate appointment. On 28.11.1992 the third respondent returned the application and directed the petitioner's mother to comply with certain defects, pursuant to which the defects were also complied with on 9.12.1992. On 21.4.1993 the third respondent again directed the petitioner's mother to produce a certificate stating that no one in their family is in employment. The said certificate was also produced before the third respondent on 2.8.1993. Thereafter there was no response from the third respondent. As the said request of the petitioner's mother is pending, on 8.4.2005 the petitioner submitted a representation along with income certificate dated 15.3.2005 issued by the Tahsildar, Vilavankode and prayed for giving compassionate appointment.

4. The third respondent passed an order stating that the petitioner has not submitted the application within three years from the date of death of petitioner's father i.e, 2.8.1991 and within three years from the date of death of petitioner's father, petitioner has not completed 18 years of age. Petitioner's mother submitted representation to the Chief Minster's Special Cell by registered post on 19.10.2006 and prayed for providing employment to the petitioner as no other legal heir is given compassionate appointment due to the death of the petitioner's father. Petitioner also submitted representations to the third respondent repeatedly in May 2005, 29.2.2008, 6.10.2010 by registered post and no action having been taken, this writ petition was originally filed with a prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide suitable employment for petitioner on compassionate grounds, which was subsequently amended on 2.12.2010 with the present prayer.

5. When the matter was posted for admission on 16.11.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgments of this Court as well as Honourable Supreme Court and the learned counsel was directed to serve notice to the standing counsel for TNEB.

6. Even though the matter was adjourned for several times on 23.11.2010, 25.11.2010, 29.11.2010, 3.12.2010, 6.12.2010, 17.12.2010, 11.2.2011, 17.2.2011 and 18.2.2011, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

7. When the matter was posted on 18.2.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed copy of various orders passed by single Judges of this Court including orders passed by me, Division Benches and the orders of the Supreme Court ordering compassionate appointment on similar grounds. The learned standing counsel for TNEB was directed to go through the said judgments and report.

8. On 18.2.2011 the learned counsel for the respondents, without filing any counter affidavit and without disputing the judgments filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed for time to get instructions. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a note containing the details of the earlier orders. Since the facts are not in dispute as per the materials available on record and time was granted on ten occas