O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings Lt.No.009030/435/Ni-P2(1)/2012-2 dated 04.01.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, his father Mr.A.Kumarasamy had been worked under the respondents Board as a lineman for more than 15 years and he died on duty on 03.06.2009 leaving behind the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking appointment under compassionate ground on 03.05.2012, however, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. A perusal of the records shows that the application filed by the writ petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was received by respondents Board on 28.04.2014. The mother of the petitioner namely Kaliammal has also submitted a letter to the Authority stating no objection for appointing his son on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the respondent Board has informed the petitioner to submit the application in a proper formate along with the necessary documents. Accordingly the application was re-submitted by the petitioner on 14.09.2012 along with the necessary documents. Pursuant to the communication sent by the fourth respondent, the application of the petitioner was considered by the 2nd respondent and finally the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.01.2014 stating that the petitioner has not filed his application within a period of three years from the date of death of his father. Challenging the above order, the writ petition is before this court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was filed by the petitioner within three years from the date of death of his father, however, he had not submitted the application in a proper formate along with necessary documents and therefore, there is no delay in filing the application. He further submitted that on the date of filing the application, the petitioner was at the age of 17 years. But, at the time of considering the application by the respondent Board, he attained majority and he was eligible for appointment and this aspect was not considered by the respondent Board.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this court dated 29.04.2019, the Government has passed comprehensive guidelines for appointment on compassionate grounds in G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and Employment (1) Department dated 23.01.2020 and he has also filed the above Government Order in compliance of the order passed by this court. According to him, the above comprehensive guidelines will apply to the case of the respondent Board.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board submitted that the petitioner has filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground beyond three years and therefore, the respondent Board has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. He further submitted that on the date of submitting the application, the petitioner was only 17 years old and he had not completed 18 years and hence, he was not eligible for appointment.

7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I have perused the materials on record.

8. The respondent Board has produced the original records before this court. On perusal of the records shows that the application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the petitioner and the same was received by the respondents Board on 28.04.2012. Thereafter, the Board by letter dated 12.05.2012, directed the petitioner to submit the application in a proper formate and to furnish the relevant documents. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed his application in a proper formate along with necessary d