IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2009 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.26521 of 2008 A.Murugan .... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Chennai-6. 2.The Zonal Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Cuddalore. 3.The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Cattle Breeding and Fooder Development, Cuddalore. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandams directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any one of the suitable post. For petitioner : Mr.P.Jayaraman, SC for Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan For respondents : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udhayakumar Spl. Govt. Pleader for RR1 to 3 ORDER The petitioner's father by name Arumugam was employed as Animal Husbandry Assistant, Veterinary Sub Centre, Melvalaiyamadevi, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District. He died on 12.07.1990 while in service. At that time, the petitioner was hardly 15 years old. His mother made an application on 03.04.1992 on behalf of the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate grounds, on the ground that the family is in financial distress. But, the 2nd respondent by his proceedings in O.Mu.No.5058/A4/92, dated 09.06.1992 informed her that the claim for employment for her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ son, the petitioner herein on compassionate ground would be considered after he attains majority. Thereafter, as soon as on attaining majority, the petitioner made a separate application seeking compassionate appointment. The 2nd respondent, by his proceedings in Na.KaNo.5547/B1/98, dated 13.11.1998 has informed the petitioner that his name is kept in the seniority list at No.157 and the same would be considered in due course after obtaining necessary instructions from the Government. But, so far the he has not been appointed is his grievance. Therefore, he has come forward with this writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider his claim for appointment in the Department on compassionate grounds. 2. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though the application by the petitioner was made beyond 3 (three) years from the date of death of his father, in view of G.O.Ms.1479, Home (POL.XV) Department, dated 09.11.1999 the same should be considered, as 3 (three) years rule is not applicable in respect of deaths occurred prior to 26.06.1995. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on 12.07.1990. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the case of the petitioner would be considered, provided he satisfies all the other legal requirements. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled in a catena of decisions that compassionate appointment is not a right of the dependants of the deceased employee. But, it is only a concession shown as per the Scheme evolved by the Government. Though the Scheme states that such application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of 3 (three) years, G.O.Ms.1479, Home (POL.XV) Department, dated 09.11.1999 has given exemption to the said rule in respect of the death that had occurred prior to 26.06.1995. It is, therefore, immaterial in the instance case to decide the question, as to whether the application was made by the petitioner beyond 3 (three) years from the date of death of his father or not. Therefore, the application of the petitioner deserves to be considered. But, at the same time, it should not be taken as if this Court had expressed any opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. It is for the authorities concerned to decide, whether the family is really in financial distress and whether the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court cannot express any opinion in this regard. 5. In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders based on his seniority. It is, however, made clear that it is for the 1st respondent to decide, whether the petitioner is entitled for appointment on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compassionate grounds or not. The claim of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that the application was not made within 3 (three) years time. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kmk To 1.The Commissioner of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Chennai-6. 2.The Zonal Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Cuddalore. 3.The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Cattle Breeding and Fooder Development, Cuddalore. 1 cc To Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate, SR.14857. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.15006. W.P.No.26521 of 2008 RJ(CO) RVL 30.04.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/