S. Manikumar, J.

1. Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.(MD) No. 6538 of 2009, by which, the Writ Court has quashed the order, dated 01.12.2008, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirappalli, 1st appellant herein, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, on the grounds that the writ petitioner had not attained majority, within a period of three years, from the date of death of the deceased employee.

2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit filed to the writ petition and the materials on record are, that the mother of the petitioner was working as a sweeper in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. On 30.03.1998, she died in harness. At that time, the writ petitioner was a minor, aged about 16 years. Hence, his grandmother has made an application, dated 30.09.2000, to the 1st appellant herein, seeking for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. Vide communication, dated 22.07.2007, grandmother of the petitioner was instructed to obtain documents, such as, legal heir certificate, fitness certificate and conduct certificate. Thereafter, vide order, dated 01.12.2008, the request of the petitioner's grandmother, was rejected.

3. Before the Writ Court, while assailing the order of rejection, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of this Court in Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V. Jaya reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 1011, J. Jeba Mary v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2011 (3) LLN 405 (Mad.) and P. Sathiaraman v. The Secretary to the Government reported in 2013 (8) MLJ 190. Following the above decisions, the rejection order has been set aside and consequently, directions have been issued to the petitioner to submit relevant documents, before the Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli, the 1st appellant herein, and on such submission, the Writ Court has further directed the appellants herein to consider the claim of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. Assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment, Mr. M. Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants submitted that at the time of the death of petitioner's mother, the petitioner was a minor, aged 12 years. He further submitted that there is no provision to reserve any post as vacant, till the writ petitioner attains the age of majority. Placing reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar reported in 2010 (2) SCC 59, he submitted that if someone has been wrongly extended a benefit, that cannot be cited as a precedent for claiming similar benefit by others. Learned Special Government Pleader also contended that on the date of submission of application, seeking employment assistance on compassionate grounds, the applicant should be eligible to be considered and that there is no obligation to consider his application on attaining majority. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for reversal of the impugned order.

5. Defending the impugned directions of the writ Court, reiterating the decisions considered and placing reliance on few other decisions in Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India [2007 (8) SCC 398], V. Sampath v. District Collector, D. Sankar v. Chief Director, Construction and Maintenance & A. Karthik v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 120, Labour and Employment, dated 26.06.1995, by which, modifications have been issued for implementing the scheme for compassionate appointment, Mr. S.K. Mani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial constraint of the bereaved family of a Government servant and it should be extended, even after several years, from the date of death of the Government servant, when there is no improvement in the economic status of the family. He further submitted that consideratio