(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioner case for compassionate ground appointment by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.04.2017.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner case for compassionate ground appointment by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.04.2017.

2. The father of the writ petitioner Late.Sri.S.P.Kadirvelu was employed as an Assistant in the 2nd respondent Municipality and died on 04.05.2002. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application on 27.05.2002 to provide an appointment on compassionate grounds. However, during the relevant point of time, the deceased employee passed away, the writ petitioner was a minor. The application submitted by the mother of the writ petitioner was also not considered and the same was rejected by the respondents in proceedings dated 20.08.2002 itself.

3. It is pertinent to note that the order of rejection passed by the respondents on 20.08.2002 has not been challenged by the writ petitioner and now, the present writ petition is filed, based on the representations submitted on 17.04.2017. In view of the fact that the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected in the year 2002 and on attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner has submitted application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court is of an opinion that the lapse of time of many years will be a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden demise of an employee became vanished.

4. This apart, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be extended after a lapse of many years. The deceased employee passed away during the year 2002 and now after a lapse of more than 16 years, the writ petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the fact that compassionate appointment is a concession and can never be claimed as a matter of right and this apart, the scheme is to be implemented within a reasonable period of time to mitigate the circumstances arising in the family on account of the sudden death of an employee. The scheme cannot be extended after a lapse of many years.

5. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the in the case of Government of India, Vs. P.Venkatesh in Civil Appeal No.2425/2019 dated 01.03.2019, held as follows:-

“The primary difficulty in accepting the line of submissions, which weighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionate appointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. After the Union Ministry of 4 Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation on 13 November 2007, it was only in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased employee. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribu