Compassionate appointment applications must be processed timely, and age eligibility should consider circumstances where applicants reach the required age within the application period.

JUDGMENT :

D.Krishnakumar, ACJ.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No.20072 of 2021, dated 21.09.2021, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, a brief reference to the relevant facts is necessary:

2.1 The appellant's mother, Tmt. R. Kasturi, died on 30.12.2012 while serving as the Headmistress at Panchayat Union Elementary School, T. Sanarpalayam, Mulanur Panchayat Union, Trippur District. Following her death, the appellant, the son of the deceased, made an application to the authorities seeking compassionate appointment. The appellant was 17 years old at the time of making the said application. The District Educational Officer (the 4th Respondent) returned the appellant's proposal with queries on 23-10-2014, which was resubmitted by the 5th Respondent on 16-06-2015 after correcting the defects. This process of returning and resubmitting the application occurred till the year 2017. On 28-06-2017, the appellant attended an enquiry as requested by the 4th Respondent through a communication dated 21-06-2017.

2.2 On 01-12-2020, the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruppur (the 3rd Respondent), rejected the appellant's application for compassionate appointment, stating that he had not completed 18 years of age at the time of submitting the first application submission. Challenging the said rejection order, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 20072 of 2021 and by order dated 21.09.2021, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that his family was not in indigent circumstance, as evidenced by the appellant's ability to complete his graduation in engineering. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Writ Court ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not completed 18 years at the time filing application for compassionate appointment. While the appellant had initially applied at the age of 17, he completed 18 years of age at the time of processing the application by the 4th respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 18 of the Labour and Employment Department dated 23-01-2020 clarifies that the pension of the deceased employee and immovable property should not be taken into account when assessing the family's income. Thus, the rejection of the application by the respondents based on the appellant’s family receiving a family pension and owning immovable property was not in line with this government order.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant had completed his graduation under significant financial strain and by raising loans, which demonstrates the family's indigent circumstances. The respondent authorities failed to consider the overall facts and circumstances, instead relying solely on G.O. Ms. No. 18. The appellant’s application was submitted within the three-year period of limitation, and he complied with all requests for documents over nearly four years, showing his earnestness and eligibility. The prolonged delay of 7 years in processing the application by the respondents-authorities caused undue hardship and mental agony for the appellant. Without considering the above factual aspects, the Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that appellant had completed graduation in Engineering and the family of the appellant receiving pension is unjust and liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent-authority submitted that the rejection of the appellant's application for compassionate appointment was justified and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant's initial application was indeed submitted when he was underage at 17, and the rules clearly state that the applicant must be