Compassionate appointments must be evaluated with a humanitarian approach, especially for minors at the time of the employee's death, and rigid application of time limits is not appropriate.

ORDER :

Battu Devanand, J.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the basis of his educational qualification within a time stipulated by this Court.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner who was working as an Office Assistant died in harness on 13.06.2009. He died at the age of 33 years. At the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was 8 years of age only. He attained majority in the year 2018. He submitted an application to the respondents for compassionate appointment in the month of July 2019, along with relevant certificates requesting to provide compassionate appointment. He also submitted an undertaking given by the mother and grand-mother of the petitioner, stating their no objection to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The Tahsildar of Kujiliamparai issued certificate dated 23.05.2023, for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents till now. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

3. learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the application of the petitioner will be considered by the fourth respondent who is the competent authority in accordance with the Rules applicable to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

4. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 28.11.2024, in W.P.No.34437 of 2018, of this Court wherein an identical issue was considered. Relying on this order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has to be considered by the fourth respondent in the light of the order cited supra. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted herein under:

“11. The issue involved in the present writ petition was already dealt by this Court and the Court of Andhra Pradesh and Apex Court in the following judgments:

i) A Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court while dealing with a case in similar circumstances in P.Kasthuri vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) and another in W.A.(MD).No.792 of 2011 vide its judgment dated 03.12.2015 directed the respondents therein to make compassionate appointment to the appellant therein considering the application submitted within the stipulated time by the mother of the appellant. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

“7. One more aspect which has to be considered de hors of the Rules is the pathetic condition of the appellant and other children of late Palanivel. After the death of the said Palanivel in 1994, his wife also passed away on 04.08.1996 after applying for compassionate appointment. In fact, the appellant and others have become orphans and they are looked after by their maternal uncle. When such is the pitiable condition, the respondents should have considered the appellant's application for compassionate appointment with compassion.

8. The learned Single Judge should also have taken into consideration the said aspect. The learned Single Judge, in fact, did not take into consideration the application made by the appellant's mother on 11.01.1996 for compassionate appointment which was in time. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The respondents are directed to make the compassionate appointment of the appellant on or before 01.04.2016, failing which the respondents shall appear before this Court on 02.04.2016.”

ii) In S.Velraj vs. The Superintendent Engineer and another in W.A.(MD).No.1400 of 2011 , a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 16.12.2015 held that three years limitation cannot be applie