JUDGMENT :

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned orders of the third respondent in L.R. No. 05555/039/Va.Ve/Nir 2(4) 2001-3 dated 18.03.2002 and L.R. No. 002120/14/Me.Pa.Po/Kada/Ni.Ve/Nir.2/Vu4/Ko.Va.Ve/2007 dated 4.7.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the basis of the representation dated 23.10.2010 and in the light of the order in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 dated 02.07.2009 in the case of the Chief Engineer/Personnel vs. P. Venkatesan.

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned letters dated 18.03.2002 and 04.07.2007 and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the basis of the representation dated 23.10.2010 and in the light of the order passed in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 dated 02.07.2009.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner's father Narayanan was working as lineman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle, Thittakudi Section, Thozhudur. While he was in service, he died on 08.05.1986, at age of 39 years, due to illness, leaving behind the petitioner and his mother, sister and brother, as his legal heirs. On the date of demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was aged 5 years.

2.1. The petitioner's mother made a representation in the year 1991, requesting for compassionate appointment to her, but it was returned directing to submit in proper format. Hence, representation was submitted in proper format, however, it was informed that since the petitioner's mother did not possess minimum required qualification of 8th standard pass, compassionate appointment could not be provided to her. Thereafter, after attaining majority, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.02.2001 before the third respondent and the same was rejected on 18.03.2002 on the ground that the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years on 12.10.1998 and he applied for compassionate appointment with a delay of 2 years and 4 months, as per Board B.P. (FB) No. 46 dated 13.10.1995.

2.2. According to the petitioner, due to poverty, he could not continue his further studies after 10th standard and also he could not approach the appropriate forum for getting compassionate appointment. In the meanwhile, the Board had issued B.P. (FB) No. 3 dated 09.01.2007, relaxing the time limit for the past cases, prior to issuance of B.P. (FB) No. 46 dated 13.10.1995 and also directed the dependants to make application for rejected cases also. Hence, the petitioner's mother made a representation dated 29.01.2007 to the third respondent requesting for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The third respondent directed to fill up the application in format, accordingly, it was furnished by the petitioner on 24.02.2007 in format. But the third respondent, rejected the application by proceedings dated 04.07.2007, on the ground that compassionate appointment shall be provided to the legal heirs of the employees, who died in service prior to 13.10.1995 only, however, the same could not be considered in view of the Board proceedings.

2.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of death of his father, there was no limitation to apply for compassionate appointment, however the petitioner's mother submitted application in the year 1991 itself. Since there was no response, after attaining majority, the petitioner had made a representation on 22.02.2001, which was rejected on 18.03.2002 on the ground that the same was not made within three years. Again he made a representation dated 24.02.2007, which was also rejected by the third respondent on 04.07.2007. Mercy petition filed by the petitioner dated 23.10.2010 before the respondents was also not considered. Hence, the writ petition has