7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the initial compassionate appointment given to the petitioner itself is bad as the said appointment had been given to the petitioner after 20 years of the death of his father, while he was in service. Normally, as per the rule, which was in force, within three years period from the date of the death of a Government servant, application from the eligible legal heirs of the deceased Government servant family should have been made and if there is no objection from any other legal heirs, such applications for compassionate appointment shall be considered on merits and appointment should be given. Here in this case in hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, after 20 years, such appointment was given to the petitioner and therefore, the Government treated it as an illegal or irregular appointment and the mother, who was already employed as a Government servant and therefore, for all these reasons, such appointment initially given to the petitioner itself is bad in law and therefore, seeking regularization of such services from the date of the very appointment ie., in the year 1993, is not a justifiable one. Hence, the Government having considered the 17 years service rendered by the petitioner has come to the rescue of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has already crossed 43 years and therefore, he may not be considered for any government appointment and that only reason, now by relaxing the relevant service rules, the benefit has been extended to the petitioner, by which, his service has been regularized at least from the date of the government order i.e., from 17.09.2013. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, the order impugned is fully justifiable and no interference is required from this Court.
