The lack of a specific scheme for compassionate appointments does not preclude such appointments in deserving cases. The deceased employee's potential for regularization and the service period should be considered, and the lack of formal regularization should not be a barrier to compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.3266/2022/Ve.Se.Sa dated 13.09.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appoint on compassionate ground.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 13.09.2022 passed by the first respondent and consequently directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. Heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Muthuvijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner''s father Silamban was selected as Attender on 19.02.1988 by the Board of the second respondent Society. On 01.07.1998, he was promoted as Clerk. During his service, he passed away on 17.06.2021. After the death of the petitioner''s father, well within three years from the date of death, on 20.07.2022 the petitioner''s mother submitted an application to the second respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Based on the petitioner''s mother''s request, the second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent through the proper channel. However, no action 2/10 was taken by the respondents to consider the petitioner''s appointment on compassionate grounds. On 19.07.2021, the petitioner submitted a petition to the District Collector, Dindigul, which was in turn forwarded to the first respondent for necessary action. The first respondent sent a communication dated 13.08.2021 to the second respondent directing to send a complete proposal to the first respondent''s office. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent had sent a complete proposal with a recommendation to consider the petitioner''s case for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the impugned rejection order, dated 13.09.2022 came to be passed. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter-affidavit and vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, since the petitioner''s father was in temporary employment and he did not come under regular time scale of pay. He reiterated that in the line of G.O(MS)No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, persons who are under temporary appointments, consolidated pay, daily wages, contract appointments and whose services are not regularized are not eligible for 3/10 consideration under compassionate ground appointment. On that basis, the learned Special Government Pleader pressed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.558 of 2009, dated 09.11.2009 (The Special Officer Vs. The Deputy Registrar and others), in a similar case, wherein this Court gave a favourable verdict to the petitioner. The relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:-

“6.As far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is true that there is no scheme in the appellant society for providing compassionate appointments. Nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that such appointments are being made in deserving cases. Therefore, merely because there is no scheme available, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be denied. As far as the impugned order in the writ petition rejecting the request for compassionate appointment is concerned, the Society has rejected the request wholly on the ground that the deceased husband of the first respondent was not regularized. 4/10 In our opinion, having regard to the fact