(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in connection with the proceedings on the file of the Second Respondent in N.K.A.1/10105/2008 dated 7.11.2008 passed by the Second Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Second Respondent dated 7.11.2008 rejecting the request of the Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment and for a direction to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that Petitioners father Arjunan was employed as Surveyor at Uthiramerur in the Land and Survey Department and on 10.2.1986 he died in harness, leaving behind the Petitioner and her mother (wife of the deceased employee). According to the Petitioner, her father was the sole bread-winner of the family. The Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and immediately after the death of Arjunan, Petitioners mother submitted an Application seeking compassionate appointment to her in the year 1986, which was rejected on the ground that she was not having minimum qualification of 8th standard.

3. On passing Plus Two (+2) examinations, Petitioner submitted an Application in the year 2001 along with all relevant certificates and at that time the Petitioner had completed 18 years of age and was not married. The said Application was kept pending for seven years due to the ban order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, P & AR Department, dated 29.11.2001 and during pendency of the said Application, on 2.2.2004 Petitioner married one Ramesh, who is also not employed. The Second Respondent informed the Petitioner that her claim for appointment on compassionate ground was forwarded to the Government, the ban order issued by the Government in the year 2001, the same was not considered. On 21.2.2006 the Government lifted the ban order and on 20.6.2007 Petitioner submitted the relevant documents and also stated that she is the only eligible legal heir of the deceased employee (Arjunan), entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. However, the said request was rejected by the department on 24.8.2007 stating that the Petitioner is a married woman and therefore, she is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. The above said order was challenged by the Petitioner in W.P.No.19581 of 2008. Placing reliance in the Division Bench decision reported in U. Arulmozhi v. The Director of School Education & others, 2006 (2) LW 324, the said W.P.No.19581 of 2008 was disposed of on 4.9.2008 by setting aside the said order and directing the Respondents to consider the request of the Petitioner without reference to her marriage, within four weeks. The said order having not been complied with, Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.465 of 2010 and during the hearing of the Contempt Petition, noticing the order passed already, the Contempt Petition was closed granting liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the order in a separate Writ Petition. Pursuant to the above liberty, this Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the Respondents having not raised the present objection in the earlier order of rejection, which was passed solely on the ground that the Petitioner is a married woman and therefore, they are not justified in finding out a new ground to reject the claim of the Petitioner.

5. When the Writ Petition was posted for admission on 3.11.2010 the learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of the Respondents.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and by consent of both parties the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

7. The point arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Second Respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, on the ground that the Application was made beyond three years from the date of death of Petitioners father, when the request was earlier rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner got married during pendency of the Application.

8. The Petitioners mother immediately applied for compassionate appointment after the death of Petitioners father. The Second Respondent having not taken the ground, which is now taken in the impugned order, for rejecting the earlier claim made by the Petitioner, I am of the view that the reason stated in the impugned order viz., Petitioner has not submitted the Application within three years from the date of death of her father, cannot be sustained. This Court directed the Petitioner to produce an Income Certificate of the Petitioners family recently obtained, to verify the financial status of the family as on today. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner produced an Income Certificate dated 23.11.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Ambattur, wherein it is stated that the Petitioners husband is doing cooli work and earning Rs.2,000/- per month.

9. Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar, 2006 (9) SCC 195, wherein also the Supreme Court considered the fact that the wife of the deceased, having applied for compassionate appointment in time and as she was found not eligible, the Application submitted by the other legal heir was directed to be considered even after the lapse of eleven years. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision the Supreme Court held thus,-

5. We are unable to accept the contention of the Counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the Appellant submitted the Application he was 13 years old and the Application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the Application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting Application.

6. As the widow had submitted the Application in time the authorities should have considered her Application. As eleven years have passed she would not be in a position to join the Government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the Appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance for which the Appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the Respondent-Authorities to consider the Application of the Appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

10. The learned Government Advocate cited the decision reported in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 (7) SCC 192 [LQ/SC/2000/1281] , which has no application to the facts in this case, as the claimant in the cited case applied for compassionate appointment for the first time after eight years. Similar claim of compassionate ground appointment was rejected in the decision reported in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004 (7) SCC 265 [LQ/SC/2004/888] , on the ground of non-existence of financial hardship. Relief was denied to a person in the decision reported in Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 (6) SCC 481 [LQ/SC/2009/1326] , on the ground that even though a person was not found traceable for seven years even thereafter within five years, no claim for compassionate appointment was made by the legal heir.

11. Similar claim of the deceased Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee was considered and relief granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Indirani Ammal v. Chief Engineer, TNEB, W.A.No.3050 of 2003 dated 8.3.2005 (P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) and S.K.K., J.). The said decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 dated 30.3.2010. Another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.42 of 2007 dated 2.7.2009 also took the same view, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.8305 of 2010 dated 6.7.2010. The contra view taken by another Division Bench of this Court was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2858-2859 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010. The said order reads as follows:

Civil Appeal No.2858-2859 of 2010 (arising from SLP (C) Nos.5068-5069/2009)

Leave granted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed in the Review Application.

The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the Appellant. The Appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the Appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the Appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, we allow these Appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge. No costs.

12. Here in this case, the Petitioners mother applied for compassionate appointment within one year and she was not given appointment due to want of minimum qualification of 8th Standard and the Petitioner being the only other legal heir, pursuing the matter and agitating her right for all these years. In the light of the present financial status of the Petitioner, the decision reported in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar, 2006 (9) SCC 195 (cited supra) applies to the facts of this case.

13. In view of the above findings, applying the above cited judgments to the facts of this case, the impugned order dated 7.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Second Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the Income Certificate produced from the Tahsildar, Ambattur, dated 23.11.2010 and pass a revised orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.