1. By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the respondent dated 16.11.2009 declining to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment due to the death of her husband and for a direction to the respondent to order employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband V. Radhakrishnan worked as Contract Labourer in the respondent Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited for more than 14 years. Considering his 14 years of service as Contract Labourer, he was absorbed as Casual Labourer on 31.1.2008 and on 12.6.2009 he was absorbed as Temporary Casual Labourer and he was paid a sum of Rs. 70/- per day. While working in the said capacity, on 17.6.2009 when he was returning from his work, he met with a road accident and died due to shock and hemorrhage in spite of rushing to Government Hospital. Petitioner is the widow of deceased V. Radhakrishnan and having two minor children, aged about 11 and 9 years as on date. Petitioner's family is in indigent circumstance as she is unemployed and not having any immovable property. On 25.9.2009 petitioner submitted an application before the respondent seeking compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected on 16.11.2009 stating that there is no provision to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as her husband worked as a Contract Labourer. Hence petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition with the above prayer.

3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent by filing counter affidavit admitting the facts about petitioner's husband's employment with the respondent and reiterating the reasons stated in the impugned order to justify the rejection order.

4. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband having been absorbed as Temporary Casual Labourer from 31.1.2008 and served till 17.6.2009, he had completed more than 480 days of continuous service within 24 calendar months and therefore he is entitled to be regularised in terms of Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The learned counsel further submitted that similar issue in respect of identically placed legal heir of an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in R. Lakshmi vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and Another, (2012) 6 MLJ 480, wherein also the claim of the temporarily appointed Casual Labourer, having completed 480 days of continuous service in 24 calender months, was ordered regularisation, though he died before regularisation and his legal heir was directed to be given compassionate appointment after granting permanency. Therefore the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the said Division Bench judgment, which was also implemented.

5. Mr. P.R. Dilipkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNEB, who also appeared before the Division Bench in the above cited case, fairly submitted that the said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing SLP, which was dismissed and thereafter the order was implemented. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no provision under the Scheme to give appointment on compassionate ground to the legal heir of a Casual Labourer.

6. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the Division Bench judgment cited supra.

7. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner's husband served as Contract Labourer for 14 years before he was absorbed as Casual Labourer on 31.1.2008 and again he was absorbed as Temporary Casual Labourer by the proceedings of the respondent dated 12.6.2009. Petitioner's husband completed about