The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of applications for compassionate appointment on hyper-technical grounds defeats the purpose of providing compassionate appointment, and a humane outlook and consideration of social and economic justice should be adopted in such cases.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to declare the Board Proceedings permanent B.P.Ms (FB)No.46, (Admn.Branch), dated 13.10.1995 issued by the respondent insofar as the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the death of Government servant and direct the respondents to grant the relief and pass further orders.

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

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners father V.A.Radhakrishnan was working in Rajaji Nagar Division Electricity Distribution North Division. The petitioners father, while working in the said place, died on 11.2.1997. At the time of death of the petitioners father, the petitioner was aged 15 years as his date of birth is 20.4.1982. The petitioner is the only son and two of his sisters are married. Based on the scheme for providing compassionate appointment to a member of the family of the deceased Electricity Board employee, the petitioner, after completion of 18 years of age, submitted an application to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds within 3 years and the same was rejected on 6.1.2002 stating that the petitioner has not completed 18 years of age. The petitioner studied upto 10th Standard. The other legal heirs, namely, two sisters are married and the petitioners mother has given No Objection to the petitioners appointment. In the application, it was stated by the petitioner that no one from his family is employed and his family is in indigenous circumstances. Again the petitioner applied, which was rejected by the respondents by order dated 31.10.2003 stating that the petitioner has not completed 18 years of age within three years of the date of death of the petitioners father on 11.2.1997 and the petitioner completed the 18 years of age on 19.4.2000. The petitioner having attained the majority, has filed this writ petition contending that the time limit prescribed for submitting application on compassionate grounds as three years to the minors of the deceased Electricity Board employee, is unreasonable and the same cannot be insisted upon to consider the claim where the claimant is a minor at the time of death of the person.

4. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2006 (9) SUPREME COURT CASES 195 (Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others) also considered the similar issue as to whether a minor claimant seeking compassionate appointment can apply 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."

5. The very same 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 15.11.1996, an application was made on 7.4.1997 for compassiona