Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the order dated 13. 1999 passed by the learned single judge in W.P.No. 18979 of 1997. .2. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking mandamus to quash the order dated 110. 1997 whereby the request of the respondent herein to get appointment for her son S. Ravi on compassionate ground was rejected by the Board. The respondent’s husband, who was an employee of the electricity board died on 11. 1995. The respondent made request for appointment of her son S. Ravi on compassionate ground as dependent of her husband. The respondent’s son S. Ravi had not passed the 8th standard. As per the circular issued by the Board, the minimum qualification required for appointment on compassionate ground is, pass in 8th standard the respondent contended that in the case of employees who died in accident during the course of employment then dependants are given relaxation in the matter of qualification and even a pass in 4th standard shall be treated as sufficient qualification for such appointment. 3. The learned single Judge held that the minimum qualification prescribed for dependants of the employees who died in the accident during their service being pass in 4th standard. The dependants of other employees who died naturally during their service shall also be given the same relaxation and consequently the appellants herein were directed to consider the case of the respondent for employment of her son on compassionate ground. This order is challenged before us. 4. We heard the learned Government Pleader and also the counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the case of employees who died in accident during the course of employment, for their dependants special consideration is given and a similar relaxation cannot be extended to the dependants or the employees who died in natural course during their service. It is important to note that the dependants or the employees who have a natural death during their service are not denied employment but a pass in 8th standard is prescribed whereas special consideration is given to the dependants of the employees who died in accident during the course or their service and such special treatment is always permissible and we do not find any illegality in such preferential treatment. Therefore, the direction of the learned single judge to give employment to the sun of the respondent contrary to the scheme was not proper. .6. However, in the instant case we are not inclined to interfere with the direction given by the learned single Judge considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent’s husband was an employee of the Electivity Board and he was a cancer patient for a long period. He was under treatment and for the continuous treatment the respondent and her mother-in-law and other family members had to incur heavy expenditure the financial condition of the respondent family was also not good considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we held that the case of the .respondent should be treated as a special case and the directions given by the learned single judge can be considered. 7. With the above observation, this writ appeal is disposed of No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No 20001/99 is closed. W.A.No.2385/1999 Chief Justice & K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. This matter is posted to day “for being mentioned”. 2. We heard bothsides. 3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of the order passed by the Electricity Board by appointing the respondent as Conservancy worker contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent is proceeded with. 4. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the respondent was entitled to get an appointment as Helper but the Board has given only the appointment as part time Conservancy worker and he would be getting a lesser emoluments. 5. It may be noted that the respondent was as such not entitled to the benefit of the scheme but however considering facts of the case naratted in our judgment, we had directed the Board to appoint him in any suitable post. However, we notice that the Board has given him only a part time conservancy worker. We direct that the respondent shall be given the work of permanent nature and his post shall be made permanent subject to the confirmation of satisfactory completion of work for the specified period. We make it clear that as and when the respondent acquires sufficient qualification he shall also be treated as eligible person for being appointed as Helper or the Helper trainee whichever scheme is available with the Board. Our judgment in W.A.No. 2385/99 dated 30.11.1999 is clarified in the above terms. 6. We make it clear that as and when the respondent acquires sufficient qualification he shall also be treated as eligible person for being appointed as Helper or the Helper trainee whichever scheme is available with the Board. Our judgment in W.A.No. 2385/99 dated 30.11.1999 is clarified in the above terms. 6. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the contempt petition may be treated as withdrawn. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.