JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 2/8/2018 made in W.P.No.29103 of 2014.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 2/8/2019, made in W.P.No.29103 of 2014.

2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit filed to the writ petition and the materials on record are that when the respondent herein was nine years old, his father died in harness, while working in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Cuddalore District, third appellant herein. Mother of the respondent made a representation to the appellants, on 13/4/2001, in person and subsequently, on 4/9/2002, to appoint her or her son, on compassionate appointment and no action has been taken by the third respondent.

3. Respondent, after attaining majority, and obtained a minimum qualification, sent a representation to the appellants, on 4/9/2012. Third appellant, passed a Resolution and forwarded written representation to the appellants 1 and 2, but the second appellant rejected the request of the respondent, in his proceedings in P.Vaa.No.25/2012, dated 8/2/2013, on the ground that he had not applied for compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved by the same, respondent has filed W.P.No.29103 of 2014. Vide, order, dated 2/8/2018, learned Single Judge has passed the following order:-

“4. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, especially, considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that refusal to entertain the petition for compassionate appointment seems to be improper and not permissible in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court allows this writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the case of petitioner appointment on compassionate ground, if the petitioner is otherwise found to be suitable and also directs the third respondent to accord appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.

5. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.”

4. Being aggrieved, appellants herein had filed the instant writ appeal on the following grounds:-

(i). Though the writ Court observes that the application for compassionate appointment was not submitted within three years, learned Single Judge directed the first and second appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent, which is erroneous in law.

(ii). At the time of death of the respondent’s father, though the respondent was three years old, his elder brother has not sought for any appointment and the mother of the respondent has not made any such request.

(iii). Writ Court has failed to consider the fact that though the mother of the respondent is illiterate and she could not be appointed as a sales women, she could have claimed some other post to suit her qualification like Attender, Sweeper, etc., but the mother of the respondent has not come forward to do so.

5. Heard Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is well settled, in a catena of decisions that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial constraint of the family and that the person seeking for employment assistance should make an application to the competent authorities within three years from the date of death of the employee, subject to satisfying the eligibility criteria, for the post to which he seeks for.

7. A Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in The Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirapalli District and another Vs. P. Marimuthu, {2016 (4) L.W 769}, this Court has observed and held as under:-

“32. It is well settled, in a catena of decisions extracted supra, that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial constraint of