O R D E R

The order of rejection passed by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment in proceedings dated 04.02.2016, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner states that her husband Mr.V.Veerasamy was employed as Driver in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and died on 05.02.2002. Before his death, the husband of the writ petitioner was ousted from service on 01.08.1996. The husband of the writ petitioner filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the said application was decided after the death of the employee. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed the said application in favour of the deceased employee.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three years as per the terms and conditions. However, the said application was not considered in view of the fact that the order of the Administrative Tribunal was not implemented and therefore, the status of the deceased employee was not finalised. 4. Since the service benefits of the deceased employee was not settled at the time of submission of the application for compassionate appointment by the petitioner, the said application was not considered by the respondents. Subsequently, the Government imposed ban for appointment from the years 2001 to 2006. There was a delay in implementing the orders of the Tribunal also. Thus the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for a prolonged period. Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed WP No.6172 of 2014 and this Court passed an order on 28.02.2014, directing the first respondent therein to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioner on 03.01.2012 and 24.12.2012 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents issued impugned order dated 04.02.2016 stating that the application submitted by the son of the writ petitioner cannot be considered, as it was submitted beyond the period of three years. The petitioner was over aged and therefore, she is not eligible for appointment.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the delay occurred on account of the delay on the part of the respondents for implementing the orders passed by the Tribunal. If at all the order of the Tribunal was implemented during the relevant point of time, the case of the writ petitioner would have been considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the fault committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment on compassionate grounds.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the deceased employee late Mr.V.Veerasamy died on 05.02.2002 and the elder son of the deceased employee Mr.V.Kalainesan submitted an application on 03.01.2012 after a lapse of about 10 years from the date of the death of the deceased employee.

7. Therefore, the respondents referred Government letter (Ms)

No.202, Labour and Employment Department, dated 08.10.2007, wherein in paragraph-3, it has been stated as under:- "The very purpose of giving compassionate grounds appointment scheme is only to help the family of the deceased Government Servant to tide over the sudden indigent circumstances unexpectedly created by the sudden and untimely death of the Government Servant. So the appointment should, therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress and the provision of compassionate appointment after a lapse of very long time defeats the very purpose of the compassionate grounds appointment scheme. The Supreme Court has made critical observations with regard to this issue and that the critical issue is whether the family is in indigent circumstances. In the cases of application made after ten years, twent