Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, C. J. , S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The appellant (Pinki Kumari) has challenged the order and judgment dated 6th July, 1995, passed by the Learned Single Judge in c. W. J. C. No.5579 of 1994. By the impugned judgment, the Learned Single judge has dismissed the writ-petition of the appellant on the ground of delay. 2. Admittedly, one late Mahendra gope, father of the appellant (Pinki kumari) was in the services of the respondents-State in its Minor Irrigation Department. He died in harness on 5th December, 1988. The widow, i. e. the mother of the appellants, made an application on11th October, 1990 for appointment of her son-in-law on compassionate ground, the bread-earner of the family having died. The said application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the son-in-law was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the widow of the deceased employee, i. e. the mother of the appellant, made application on 3rd March, 1993 for appointment of appellant on compassionate ground. The same was also rejected by the Respondent by one memo No.312 dated llth April, 1994, on the ground of delay. This order dated llth April, 1994 was challenged by the appellant in C. W. J. C. No.5579 of 1994, which was dismissed by the Learned single Judge by impugned order and judgment dated 6th July, 1995. 4. The Counsel for the appellant, relied on the Circular issued by the state Government vide Resolution No.6817 dated 25th May, 1989. It was submitted that by aforesaid Resolution dated 25th May, 1989, the period of two years, which was earlier laid down by Circular dated 12th July, 1977, was extended to five years, for the purpose of making application for appointment on compassionate ground, to be counted from the date of death of the deceased employee. It was stated that the deceased employee (father of the appellant) having died on 5th December, 1988, and the application relating to appointment of applicant having been made on 3rd March, 1993, it was well within time, and on the basis of resolution dated 25th May, 1989, the respondents and/or this Court should not have rejected the case of the appellant on the ground of delay. 5. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the father of the appellant died on 5th december88. 5. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the father of the appellant died on 5th december88. At that point of time, the resolution dated 25th May, 1989 was not in existence and the circular of the state Government dated 12th July, 1977 was in vogue. It was submitted that on the basis of the said Circular dated 12th july, 1977, only two years period of limitation was laid down for making application for appointment on compassionate ground, to be counted from the date of death of the deceased employee. The appellant having not applied for such appointment within two years of death of her father, her application was rightly rejected. 6. It will be evident from the resolution No.6817 dated 25th May, 1989 that the said Circular is a beneficial legislation to give employment to one of the dependents of deceased employee, to save the family of deceased employee from starvation on the death of such bread-earner. The Resolution dated 25th May, 1989 is not limited to the employees who died after 25th May, 1989. The limitation period for making application for compassionate appointment, which was earlier limited to two years from the death of the employee, only such period of limitation for making application was extended to five years. Accordingly, the said Resolution dated 25th May, 1989, is applicable both with respect to the dependent of such employees who died prior to 25th May, 1989 and /or after 25th May, 1989. 7. In the aforesaid background, the respondents should have considered the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground in terms with the Resolution dated 25th May, 1989, she having applied within the period prescribed for making such application, i. e. five years. 8. Accordingly, this court hold that the case of the appellant requires reconsideration for appointment against a post under the respondents, on compassionate ground, taking into note the eligibility of the appellant. The impugned order of rejection dated 11th april, 1994, as well as the impugned order and judgment dated 6th July, 1995, passed in C. W. J. C. No.5579 of 1994, are accoi. Ungly set aside. 9. The impugned order of rejection dated 11th april, 1994, as well as the impugned order and judgment dated 6th July, 1995, passed in C. W. J. C. No.5579 of 1994, are accoi. Ungly set aside. 9. The respondents are directed to take steps tor appointment of appellant, as directed above, and to come out with specific order , which is to be finelised within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The letters patent appeal is allowed will the aforementioned observations and directions, l. P. A Allowed.