(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings bearing 94019/J3/2012 dated 24.01.2013 passed by the first respondent and the consequential impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1999/A1/2015 dated 23.09.2015 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and subsequently directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on the basis of compassionate ground.)

The order of rejection, dated 24.01.2013, passed by the Original Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in Proceedings, dated 23.09.201,5 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late. R. Srinivasan was employed as Headmaster and died on 16.08.2001 while he was in service. The petitioner states that the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted on 28.03.2006 and a delay had occurred on account of the fact that there was a ban for appointment during the period from 2001 to 2006. Thus, the petitioner submitted an application on 28.03.2006, the said application was rejected on 24.01.2013 and the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was also rejected by the Appellate Authority on 23.09.2015. The reason for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner was that the family of the writ petitioner was not in indigent circumstances and further the application was submitted beyond the period of three years. With reference to the delay in submitting the application, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 12.03.2007, which states that on account of ban period, submission of the application was extended and therefore, the application submitted by the writ petitioner was well within the time limit. However, in respect of the ground of indigence, the petitioner pleads that the family was in indigent circumstances and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is entitled to be considered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner was un-married and now the petitioner got married and living with her husband.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the contentions by stating that the petitioner as of now is aged about 33 years and got married. This apart, the father of the writ petitioner was employed as Headmaster and died on 16.08.2001. The order of rejection was passed by the Original Authority in the year 2013 and by the Appellate Authority during the year 2015. The learned counsel for the respondents state that the brother of the writ petitioner had completed B.E., degree and was an earning member of the family. This apart, the mother of the writ petitioner was receiving the family pension. Under these circumstances, the authorities competent came to know that the family of the writ petitioner was not in penurious circumstances and hence, then the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the indigent circumstances of the family must be properly ascertained by the competent authorities by conducting a detailed enquiry. The very purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden demise of the deceased Government employee. Thus, the very scheme is to save the family and not to provide one appointment to one legal heir of the deceased employee. Therefore, the indigent circumstances, the life style, other source of income including the quantum of family pension, terminal benefits and retirement benefits received are all to be thoroughly ascertained by the compe