The main legal point established in the judgment is that compassionate appointment claims should not be denied solely on the grounds of delay, especially when the family of the deceased government servant is in indigent circumstances.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the relating order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 dated 20.03.2013 quash the same, further direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to issue appointment order to the petitioner.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 dated 20.03.2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father late K.Ganesan, while working as Block Health Statistician at Karapattu Primary Health Centre, Tiruvannamalai District. died in harness on 17.02.1998, leaving behind the petitioner's mother, his two sisters along with his grandmother and the petitioner himself as his legal heirs.

3. According to the petitioner, his family does not own any immovable property or any other source of income. Similarly, there is no other earning member in his family, either in private employment or working in Government Service. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's family became impecunious and was not in a position to survive and meet the day to day expenses from the meagre pension amount of Rs.4,800/- per month. In such circumstances, in the year 1999, the petitioner's mother, who is blind, had approached the third respondent, seeking for employment under compassionate ground but her claim was denied by the respondents stating that she was not fit for any job due to her blindness and she was also advised by the respondents that if any other qualified person in her family is available, they can make suitable application for seeking employment under compassionate ground.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was five years old and his sisters were not possessing basic educational qualification to apply for the compassionate appointment. Therefore, in the year 2013, the petitioner after attaining the age of majority, made an application on 05.02.2013 seeking for compassionate appointment. However, his claim was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not applied within 3 years from the date of his father's death, vide order dated 20.03.2013 in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Placing reliance on the order made in W.P.No.9528 of 2008 in the case of R.Sridevi vs. Labour and Employment Department reported in 2011 SCC Online Mad 1523, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the view taken in the above decision, wherein the claim of the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment, after a lapse of seven years from the date of death of the government servant, has been considered and appointment has also been granted. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“14. In view of the legal propositions laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied and therefore, the impugned orders dated 08.10.2007 and 09.12.2007 passed by respondents 1 and 2, respectively are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to any suitable post without reference to the objection raised in the impugned orders i.e., the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of death of her father, but taking into account the fact that the sudden death of her father has left his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also su