Judgment :- F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. Appellant is the wife of one Thiru.P.Periyasamy who was employed as a line inspector in the respondent board and who died in harness on 15.11.1996. After his death, an application was made by the appellant for compassionate appointment for her elder son by an application dated 07.04.1997. After calling for details through a communication dated 09.07.1997, the third respondent rejected the claim for compassionate appointment for the elder son by a communication dated 05.12.1998 on the ground that the elder son of the appellant was over aged. 2. Thereafter, on 11. 11. 1999, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment for her younger son. The said application was forwarded to the second respondent. Her younger son by name Navamani himself made an application on 1.4.2000, along with no objection letters from his other brothers, seeking compassionate appointment. In the said application, details were again called for by the respondent board through its communication dated 10.4.2000. It is relevant to note that though appellants younger son Navamani applied for compassionate appointment on 11.11.1999 he became major only on 15.3.2000. Nevertheless, his application dated 11.11.1999 was renewed by a personal application made by Navamani himself on 1.4.2000. The claim for such compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the second respondent by a communication dated 24.9.2001 on the ground that the present claim for compassionate appointment for the younger son cannot be considered since he had not completed 18 years within three years period and he had not satisfied the educational qualification of a pass in the 8th standard. It was also stated therein that the application was not made within three years. 3. The third respondent also reiterated the same reasons while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment in his communication dated 12.7.2002. The appellant preferred the present writ petition challenging the above communication and the learned single Judge of this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another AIR 2005 SC 106 : (2004) 12 SCC 487 : 2005-I-LLJ-240: 2005-3-L.W. 66, held that the claim of the appellant cannot be considered as it was belated in point of time. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Chitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellants case cannot be construed as one of belated claim since immediately after the death of her husband, an application was preferred on 7.4.1997 for her elder son and since the same was rejected on the ground that he was over aged, the appellant made a subsequent application for her younger son on 11.11.1999, who became major only on 15.3.2000. According to the learned counsel since the appellant was diligently agitating her representation for compassionate appointment right from 7.4.1997 till the filing of the last application on 1.4.2000 for her younger son, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the said claim on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that her younger son also did not become major at the time of the second application. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as that of a learned single Judge reported in Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi , 2005 WLR 256, P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another 2002 (4) L.L.N. 1132: 2005 Writ L.R. 256: 2005-2-L.W. 62(l) S.N. and T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others , (2004) 4 MLJ 238 . Learned counsel further contended that the decision relied upon by the learned single Judge reported in (2004) 12 SCC 1292 is distinguishable. 5. As against the above submission, Mr.Patturajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board contended that as per the rules prevailing as on date, since an application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee and since the last application was made only on 1.4.2000, the respondent Board was justified in rejecting the said application on the ground of delay. According to the learned counsel, even if the application stated to have been sent on 11.11.1999 can be held to be within time namely 14.11.1999, since the person for whom the appointment was sought for namely the last son of the appellant had not attained the age of 18 years by that date, that application cannot be said to have been made within time. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another (supra) . the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. 6. Having heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are not able to appreciate and accept the stand of the respondents. We hasten to state that the very purport of extending a helping hand to a destitute on the death of her husband by way of compassionate appointment would get defeated if such claims are turned down on such hypher technical ground. In the case on hand, as noted earlier, after the death of the appellants husband on 15.11.1996, an application was made on 7.4.1997 for compassionate appointment for her elder son. Therefore, there was an application for compassionate appointment within five months from the date of the death of her husband. It was unfortunate that the said application came to be rejected on the ground that her elder son was over aged. Such rejection was made only on 5.12.1998. Therefore,the appellant had to necessarily wait for some more time in order to renew her claim for appointment of her younger son who was running 18 years as on 11.11.1999. The said younger son completed his 18 years on 15.3.2000. Nevertheless, the appellant wanted to ensure that an application was made on 11.11.1999 itself for that son in order to confirm that an application for compassionate appointment was made well within time i.e. before 14.11.1999 by which time the three years period from the date of death of her husband would come to an end. Subsequently, on 1.4.2000, her younger son himself renewed the application preferred by the appellant on 11.11.1999 by making another application along with the no objection letters of his other brothers. Subsequently, on 1.4.2000, her younger son himself renewed the application preferred by the appellant on 11.11.1999 by making another application along with the no objection letters of his other brothers. Therefore, all the above steps taken by the appellant go to show that she was diligently pursuing her claiming for compassionate appointment over the death of her husband right from the year 1997 till 1.4.2000. In such circumstances, when the appellant being a widow and since she had no other source of livelihood, the respondents should have been much more sympathetic and practical in considering the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment to her younger son based on the application dated 11.11.1999 and 1.4.2000. In this context, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others T. Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others (supra) and P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another (supra) as well as the decision of the Division Bench reported in Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi (supra) , fully supports the claim of the appellant. As far as the decision reported in National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another (supra) , is concerned, that was a case where the application came to be made nearly after 10 years after the death of the deceased employee. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that the application was made to the appellant Corporation therein which was not answerable to the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the facts involved in that case have no application to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down therein cannot, therefore, be applied to the facts of this case. 7. Therefore, the facts involved in that case have no application to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down therein cannot, therefore, be applied to the facts of this case. 7. For all the above reasons, we are convinced that the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment for her younger son Navamani ought to have been favourably considered by the respondent Board. The rejection of the appellants claim by the communication dated 24.9.2001 by the second respondent as well as the communication dated 12.7.2002 by the third respondent are therefore not justifiable and accordingly, the same are set aside. The writ appeal stands allowed. The respondents are directed to entertain the application of the appellant dated 11.11.1999 along with the application of her younger son Navamani dated 1.4.2000 and pass appropriate orders for granting compassionate appointment to the younger son of the appellant expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.