The application for compassionate appointment should be submitted within the specified time frame from the date of the employee's death, and the petitioner must demonstrate sufficient cause for the relief sought.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order of the second respondent, dated 1.2.2011, and to consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the first respondent Corporation, in a suitable post, on compassionate ground.

3. The petitioner has stated that his father, G. Musaliah, was working as a bullock cart driver in the 'D' Cattle Field Health Department. He had died in harness, on 2.6.2004, leaving behind his mother, two elder brothers, the petitioner, one younger brother and two younger sisters. Due to the sudden death of the father of the petitioner, the family had lost its earning member and the entire family was in indigent circumstances. In such circumstances, the mother of the petitioner had made a representation to the second respondent, on 15.10.2004, for being appointed in a suitable post, on compassionate ground. The said request had been renewed, by way of several representations. While so, the second respondent, through his letter, dated 8.11.2010, had directed the Tahsildar, Purashawalkam, to enquire into the financial status of the family. The Tahsildar, Purashawalkam, had submitted a certificate, dated 9.12.2010, certifying about the indigent circumstances of the family of the petitioner. The Veterinary Medical Officer had also forwarded the application of the petitioner, to the General Department, for further processing. While so, the petitioner had received an order, dated 1.2.2011, from the second respondent stating that the application of the petitioner, for compassionate appointment, had been rejected, as it has been submitted, belatedly.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioner, for being appointed on compassionate ground, by the second respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. The second respondent had not considered the fact that the mother of the petitioner had made an application, on 15.10.2004, soon after the death of the father of the petitioner. Even though all the documents required by the respondents had been furnished, the second respondent had passed the impugned order without applying his mind. The Tahsildar, Purashawalkam, had also confirmed the indigent status of the petitioner and since no orders had been passed, the petitioner had made another application, on 1.11.2010. However, there has been no delay in the filing of the application, as the mother of the petitioner had submitted her application, on 15.10.2004. Therefore, the reasons stated in the impugned order, by the second respondent, while rejecting the application of the petitioner, 1.2.2011, is liable to be set aside.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

6. It has been stated that the father of the petitioner had died in harness, on 2.6.2004. The petitioner had made an application, only on 1.11.2010, for being appointed in a suitable post, on compassionate ground. Thus, it is clear that the application submitted by the petitioner is belated in nature. As per the Government Letter No.42119/MC/3/07/2, dated 11.4.2008, the application should have been submitted, within three years from the date of the death of the employee concerned. Since the petitioner had submitted the application, after more than six years, after the death of the employee, the application is liable to be rejected, as it is belated in nature.

7. It has also been stated that, from the report of the Tahsildar, Purashawalkam, it could be noted that the petitioner is employed on an annual income of Rs.1,10,244/- and the family of the member is not in indigent circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the appointment on compassionate ground, as pra