S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to provide employment to petitioner's daughter R. Parameswari, on compassionate grounds. The facts in nutshell to be considered in this Writ Petition is that the husband of the writ petitioner late M. Ramamoorthy, was working as daily rated worker and passed away on 07.12.1996, while he was in service.

2. The writ petitioner submitted an Application seeking compassionate appointment on 16.09.1987, and no progress has been made in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner. However, the second respondent made an endorsement in the Application submitted by the writ petitioner on 16.09.1987, by stating that as the husband of the writ petitioner was working only on daily wage basis and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. The petitioner further submits that the Joint Director (Electrical and Electronics) in his proceedings dated 21.12.1999, regularized the services of the late husband of the writ petitioner in the post on Unskilled worker in the Tamil Nadu Industries Subordinate Service with effect from 05.11.1979, against the supernumerary post sanctioned in G.O.(4d) No. 76, Small Industries E.I(2) Department dated 16.11.1999, for the period from 05.11.1979 to 30.09.1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-400 and from 01.10.1984 to 07.12.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 450-720, by relaxing the Rule 5(b) of the Ad hoc Rules.

3. At the outset, the writ petitioner claims that the services of the deceased employee was regularised with retrospective effect and therefore, the writ petitioner is eligible for compassionate appoint. The writ petitioner stated that after the death of the deceased employee, the services were regularised by the Government by issuing the Government Orders in respect of similarly placed person, the said benefit of regularisation be extended to the deceased employee also, since the regularisation was granted with retrospective effect.

4. This Court is of the opinion that the compassionate appointment being an exception, cannot be dealt in such a way and the long delay in providing the compassionate appointment is also a factor to be considered. In the case on hand, the husband of the writ petitioner passed away on 07.12.1986 and now after a lapse of 31 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, this Court is not inclined to consider the case the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.

5. This Court is of the opinion that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is to be construed as violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and therefore does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. A compassionate appointment scheme is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the claimant to be enforced through a writ proceeding. A compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succor to the deceased employee. Mere death of a Government employee in his harness, it does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee.

6. The concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Bein