Order The case relates to compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner, Late Ramu Ram was in the services under the Respondents-State in its Water Resources (Irrigation) Department. He was initially appointed on daily wage basis in the work charge Establishment some time in the year 1974. Subsequently, by one Notification dated 3rd October, 1980 (Annexure-1) said Ramu Ram was appointed as a Labourer in the Regular case of pay in the work charge Establishment. He died in harness on 9th June 1988. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. However no date of such application has been shown in the writ petition. According to the petitioner he applied within few days from the date of death of his father for such compassionate appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent to which the petitioner replied by filing rejoinder. According to the State the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as his father Late Ramu Ram was not an employee in the Regular Establishment but was appointed in the work charge Establishment. Further the ground of delay in filing application has been taken by the Respondents for non consideration of the case of the petitioner I have heard the parties and have gone through the affidavits tiled by them. It appears that the matter relating to placement of services of work-charge employees in the Regular Establishment remained pending with the State Government during which period, the father of the petitioner Ramu Ram died. Subsequently, by order dated 6th May, 1991, all the work-charge employees were taken in the Regular Establishment with effect from 22nd October. 1984 but Ramu Ram having died his case was not considered. The aforesaid fact I could get from letter no. 620 dated 3rd July, 1993 (Annexuic-2) I further find the subsequently the Chief Engineer took up the matter for taking over of the services of Late Ramu Ram in the Regular Establishment from retrospective date and to provide notional benefit to that effect and for that he made recommendation to the State Government by memo No. 300 dated 11th May 1994 (Annexurc-3). The State Government thereafter has come out with one order no. 17 dated 6th February 1995 by which certain orders were issued with respect to Ramu Ram giving effect from 22nd October, 1984. In fact in the counter affidavit at Paragraph no. The State Government thereafter has come out with one order no. 17 dated 6th February 1995 by which certain orders were issued with respect to Ramu Ram giving effect from 22nd October, 1984. In fact in the counter affidavit at Paragraph no. 6, it has been stated that the services of Ramu Ram was regularised with effect from 22nd October, 1984 vide Department's letter no. 17 dated 6th February, 1995. It wilt be evident from Annexure-1 an order dated 3rd October, 1980 that service of Ramu Ram was regularised/provided with regulsr appointment in the work-charge Establishment. Such being position, the word "regularisation" used in the departmental letter no. 17 dated 6th February 1995 made effective from 22nd October 1984 as mentioned in the counter affidavit is to be construed as an orders by which the services of said Ramu Ram was taken in the regular establishment. This interpretation is based on the recommendation made vide letter no. 620 dated 3rd July, 1990 and letter no. 300 dated 11th May, 1994 on the basis of which the order was passed on 6th February 1995. Thus I hold that the Respondents cannot reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his father was not an employee of the Regular Establishment under the State Government. Apart from the aforesaid fact after going through the relevant circulars of the State G0vernment relating to compassionate appointment including the 1977 Circular and the Circular dated 25th March, 1989, I find that the Respondent-State had not made any distinction between the two sets of deceased Government employees on the basis of establishment. If a Government employee dies in harness, a dependent was eligible for compassionate appointment if such compassion is required and for that no distinction can be made on the ground that one deceased employee was in one Establishment and the other Establishment. So far as delay in filing the representation is concerned according to me, the matter has not been properly looked into by the Respondent in this respect. It has not been made clear as to when the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 9th June, 1988 when the 1977 Circular was in vogue. Therein two years limitation period was prescribed to file application for such appointment. However before expiry of such two years period of limitation, the State Govt. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 9th June, 1988 when the 1977 Circular was in vogue. Therein two years limitation period was prescribed to file application for such appointment. However before expiry of such two years period of limitation, the State Govt. came out with new Circular on 25th March 1989 extending the period of limitation from two years to five, year from the date of death of deceased employee. Such being the position if the petitioner has applied for appointment by 8th June, 1993 (five years from the death of his father) then the Respondent cannot reject such claim of petitioner on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I remit the matter to the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and if necessary, the case be placed before the appropriate Compassionate Appointment Committee. A decision in this respect is to be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.