JUDGMENT S. K. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. 2. The petitioner, who is the elder son of the deceased employee, who died in harness has moved this court for a direction to the authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground, as the mother of the petitioner has also filed a affidavit on 6.7.91. Stating therein that the petitioner is eldest son and she along with her children were being looked after by him. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that during the pendency of the present application, the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that on the day when his father died in harness, he was minor. 4. Learned Counsel for the State has further argued that during the period when the father of the petitioner died the relevant circular envisages that a person should apply within two years from the death of the Government employee in harness. Admittedly within the said period as the petitioner was minor he could not have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has asserted that on 25.5.89 a fresh circular was issued in which the said period has been enhanced to five years and as the petitioner had applied within the said period of five years. 6. To my mind the present case is covered by a decision of this court reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 668 in the case of Brajendra Pd. Poddar Vs. The State of Bihar. In the said judgment it has clearly been stated that as liberalised rules have already came in force at the time when the petitioner's application was in consideration and as the petitioner was major on the said date his application should have been disposed of on merit, rather on technicality as the same has been rejected in the present case. 7. In the result the present application succeeds, Annexures A and Bare quashed and the respondents authorities are directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It is clear that if the claim of the petitioner is not allowed, a reasoned order should be passed.