ORDER : L.M. Sharma, J. - Special leave petition on behalf of petitioner 7 Uma Singh Pal is not pressed and dismissed as such. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted. 3. The appellants who are 25 in number, claim priority in matter of employment in the Railways on the ground of being sons of Railway employees on the basis of a policy decision which is being followed in the Department. For that purpose a panel was prepared in 1984 including the appellants and the same was cancelled subsequently without notice to them. Another panel was later prepared in 1989 in which the appellants are not included. They, after challenging the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal unsuccessfully, approached this Court with special leave petitions being SLP (C) Nos. 1213-14 of 1988. The matter was disposed of by the order of this Court dated September 8, 1988, as contained in Annexure P-1 directing reconsideration of their cases after ignoring the age bar. Consequently another panel was prepared, but again the appellants could not find place therein. The appellants once more moved fresh petitions before the Tribunal which were dismissed by the order under challenge. 4. In reply to a query by the Bench, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the appellants were entitled to their claim of priority in 1984, when the first panel was prepared. He has, however, contended that since the appellants had not filed their applications through the employment exchange, the claim could not be considered. We have examined the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court and the nature of the claim of priority based on compassionate grounds, the refusal to consider the appellants' claim for the sole reason that the applications had not been sent through the employment exchange was not justified. Accordingly we direct the respondents to include the names of the appellants in the fresh panel. 5. Mr. R.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, has drawn our attention to the earlier order of this Court requiring the respondents to state whether sufficient number of vacant posts are available against which the appellants, in case of their success, can be accommodated. The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that vacancies do exist. 5. Mr. R.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, has drawn our attention to the earlier order of this Court requiring the respondents to state whether sufficient number of vacant posts are available against which the appellants, in case of their success, can be accommodated. The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that vacancies do exist. An additional affidavit has also been filed stating that there are in existence 43 vacant posts at present. After taking into account all the relevant circumstances in the case including the considerable delay in disposing of the claim of the appellants, we direct the Railway authorities to treat the appellants as claimed by them, and then consider them along with the other applicants, if any, belonging to the same category as the appellants and having similar preferential claim, and pass appropriate orders of appointment to the existing vacancies expeditiously preferably within two months from today. 6. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal allowed.