Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Biscomaun on the question of limitation. 2. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the same, the limitation petition is allowed and the appeal be treated to be filed within time. 3. The appeal has been heard on merit also. 4. Present appeal arises out of an order of the writ court dated 25.2.2004 in C.W.J.C. No. 2147 of 2004 whereby the writ court in view of the fact that the petitioners father had died on 12.12.1997 (it is contended by the appellant that actual date is 12.10.1997 and it is a typographical error showing it as 12.12.1997) and on the aforesaid date as the appellant was a minor in view of law settled by the Apex Court a person who was a minor on the date of death of the bread earner was not entitled for compassionate appointment dismissed the writ petition. 5. There cannot be two opinions regarding aforesaid proposition but one aspect which the writ court had not taken into consideration was that immediately after the death of the deceased employee of the Biscomaun in harness, his wife had made an application for compassionate appointment that was required to be considered, as the same was lying with the authorities and was not considered, in the meantime as the son became major second application was for consideration of his case in case the wife was not granted compassionate appointment. 6. Today, also by filing a counter affidavit this aspect has not been denied that the Biscomaun had adopted the government resolution relating to compassionate appointment. Rather the averment it the supplementary affidavit is also controverted that several appointments had been made on compassionate ground where the employees had died in harness but the only aspect which has been argued today is and has been brought on record in the counter affidavit is to the effect that after supersession of Biscomaun i.e. since last 15 years no compassionate appointment has been made as the Biscomaun itself was facing a financial crunch. 7. When the court asked the counsel to bring on record any resolution of the Board of Directors withdrawing or recalling earlier decision accepting the government resolution it has very fairly been accepted that the same is still on the records and the resolution still holds good. 8. 7. When the court asked the counsel to bring on record any resolution of the Board of Directors withdrawing or recalling earlier decision accepting the government resolution it has very fairly been accepted that the same is still on the records and the resolution still holds good. 8. Once this fact is accepted that for employees dying in harness their ward was required to be considered under the service condition for compassionate appointment and as the employee in question has died in harness his widow has applied in time, her application or in view of her subsequent submission, her sons application was required to be considered by the Biscomaun and appropriate speaking orders passed in accordance with law. 9. It is accordingly ordered that let the aforesaid application be considered and appropriate speaking order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The appeal is allowed and the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2147 of 2004 is set side.