Compassionate appointment applications by dependents should be evaluated on individual hardship rather than strict adherence to submission timelines.

ORDER :

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

This petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the 3^rd respondent's letter made in No.5890/77/Me.Po/Ka.Mi.Pa.Va/Kallai/Ni.Pi2/Udhavi5/Ko.Vaa.Ve/2023 dated 5/9/2023 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner's son namely Gowtham on compassionate ground for the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable job.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while the husband of the petitioner worked as a line man in the third respondent office, on 11/6/2016, he died due to ill health. The petitioner made an application to the first respondent on 30/4/2018 requesting to give any job to her elder son namely V.Gowtham, under compassionate appointment. Even though all the necessary documents were produced before the third respondent, they have not considered the same.

3. At the time of death of her husband, her elder son has completed 13 years and after attaining majority, made another representation on 1/8/2022. Since there was no response, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.19187 of 2023, to direct the respondents therein to give appointment to the petitioner's son. Vide, order dated 28/6/2023, this Court had directed the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1/8/2022 on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order.

4. Enclosing the copy of the order dated 28/6/2023, the petitioner had again approached the third respondent. But the third respondent had rejected the case of the petitioner, vide, order dated 5/9/2023 on the ground that the petitioner had made an application after six years of the death of her husband. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition.

5. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner died on 11/6/2016. The petitioner's wife made a representation on 30/4/2018, with all requisite documents to the third respondent requesting to provide compassionate appointment to her son. The petitioner had again approached the third respondent immediately after her son attained majority to give suitable job under compassionate appointment to her son. But the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had submitted the application after six years of her deceased husband.

7. The learned counsel further contends that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the third respondent failed to consider the aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme and it was rejected on technicalities without considering the actual sufferings of the petitioner after the death of the sole bread winner of the family.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the application claiming compassionate appointment has to be submitted within 3 years from the date of death of the deceased. In the present case, the application was submitted by the petitioner belatedly and as such, the claim is rejected as per the procedure.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record.

10. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner died on 11/6/2016. The wife of the deceased made a representation for compassionate appointment to his elder son on 30/4/2018. After attaining majority, the petitioner again made a representation on