(1.) The Order of rejection dated 26.12.2014, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner Ms.C.Nithya, vehemently argued that the writ petitioner was consistently pursuing the remedy to secure appointment on compassionate grounds.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the deceased employee died on 21.04.1997 and the application seeking appointment itself was filed during the year 2012, after a lapse of about 13 years. Thus, the respondents had rejected the claim on the ground of "delay". This apart, the impugned order itself states that the writ petitioner had earlier filed writ petition in W.P.No.24953 of 2012, before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, whereby the High Court had directed the writ petitioner to exercise one of the two options under IOCL SABF Scheme dated 06.12.2012 and the writ petitioner had submitted application on 26.12.2012, confirming the option and payments were accordingly disbursed.