1. The petitioner is the son of late V. Periyasamy, who was employee as Line Inspector in the respondent-Board till 28 July, 1997. The said Periyasamy died on 29 July, 1997 leaving behind the following legal heires:
(1) Annamaiyili
(2) P. Mahalingam
(3) P. Ravi
(4) P. Ramesh
2. As per the Board's proceedings No. 46, dated 13 October, 1995, entitling toe Board to make appointments on compassionate grounds, the mother of the petitioner applied to the respondent-Board on 30 January, 1999 requesting to provide employment to her son by name P. Ramesh. The said request was made within a period of three years as provided under the Board's proceedings No. 46, dated 13 October, 1995. However, the said request was rejected on the ground that Sri P. Ramesh did not possess the minimum educational qualification of a pass in the VIII Standard, by the second respondent in their letter, dated 9 February, 1999. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner, who is the second son of late Periyasamy applied on 10 January, 2001 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said request was rejected by the impugned order, dated 29 January, 2001, on the ground that the request was made beyond the period of three years and toe same cannot be entertained as per the Board's proceedings, dated 13 October, 1995. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per toe Board's proceedings, dated 13 October, 1995, the request for appointment on compassionate grounds was made within a period of three years from toe date of the death of the employee. The father of the petitioner died on 29 July, 1997 and one of the brothers of the petitioner made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds through his mother of the petitioner on 30 January, 1999 within a period of three years. Only when the said request was rejected, the present application was made on 10 January, 2001, of course beyond the period of three years. However, the second respondent should have considered the request for renewal of the earlier request and if that be so, the request made by the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that it was made beyond the period of three years.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on toe other hand submitted that the earlier request made by the wife of late Periyasamy on behalf of her third son was rejected on toe ground that the third son did not possess the minimum education qualification. The request of the petitioner made on 10 January, 2001 for appointment on compassionate ground was admittedly made beyond the period of three years. Hence the said request could not be considered on the basis of the Board's proceedings, dated 13 October, 1995.
5. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions. The scheme providing for appointment on compassionate grounds, is to enable the legal heirs or dependents of the deceased employee who dies while in service, to get appointment as they should not suffer due to the loss of earning bread-winner of toe family. In the matter of appointment on compassionate grounds, the employer has to adopt always a lenient and sympathetic approach only in the interest of the dependents of its own employee, who die while in service to maintain the family. Accordingly the wife of the deceased employee submitted an application requesting the respondent-Board for appointment of her son by name Sri Ramesh on compassionate grounds. The said request was made on 30 January, 1999 within a period of three years. When the said request was rejected on toe ground that Sri Ramesh did not possess toe minimum educational qualification of a pass in toe VIII Standard, the subsequent request was made by the petitioner for such appointment on 10 January, 2001. The said request cannot be considered as one made beyond toe period of three years, as the same was not made for the first time beyond toe period of three years after the demise of the father of the petitioner. The earlier request made for such an appointment was well within a period of three years and therefore, the subsequent request even though made beyond the period of three years, can be treated as one made within a period of three years as the second request was made only on the ground that the first request for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected and therefore the second request for appointment shall be treated as one of renewal of request made earlier within the period of three years.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the respondent-Board ought to have taken a lenient view in considering the application or the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and ought not to have rejected the same on the ground that it was made beyond the period of three years.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground only on the ground that the application was made beyond the period of three years cannot be sustained and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the same is set aside and the respondent-Board is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner, dated 10 January, 2001, for appointment on compassionate grounds without reference to the delay on merits and in accordance with the Board's proceedings and pass orders within a period of six weaks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. Connected W.M.P is closed. No costs.