Judgment :- (This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.2826 of 1996 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the order in M.A. No.70954/A1/95 dated 28.2.1996, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any of the suitable posts under their control on compassionate grounds within a reasonable time as fixed by the Court.) Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the third respondent dated 28.2.1996 rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner is the adopted son of one T.Vadivelu, who worked with petitioner's father and therefore the petitioner is not in indigent circumstance. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 21.2.1989 his father died while he was in service as Office Assistant in the Government central Press, Chennai-79, coming under the Directorate of Stationary and Printing, Chennai-2. Further case of the petitioner is that one V.Parameswari, wife of T.Vadivelu, filed a petition before this court in O.P.No.467 of 1991 and prayed to appoint her as guardian of the petitioner, who was a minor at that time, to claim the benefits of deceased petitioner's father, worth Rs.30,102/- and this Court by order dated 25.9.1991 appointed the said V.Parameswari as guardian of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of death of petitioner's father, the petitioner was 14 years old and after attaining majority, he had applied for compassionate appointment on the grounds that no one in his family was employed; that his mother pre-deceased his father; and that, he is the only son. Petitioner has also produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam-Perambur, to the effect that the petitioner was receiving only Rs.519/- as family pension; he is having no movable or immovable property; he is the only legal heir of the deceased employee by name S.G.Aruldoss; and hence he is in indigent circumstance. In fact, the Tahsildar by his report dated 31.10.1994 recommended to the second respondent to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as he is in indigent circumstance. But, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order was passed wrongly construing that the petitioner was looked after by T.Vadivelu, a co-employee of petitioner's father and he is the adopted son of T.Vadivelu and hence he is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 4. But, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order was passed wrongly construing that the petitioner was looked after by T.Vadivelu, a co-employee of petitioner's father and he is the adopted son of T.Vadivelu and hence he is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the order of this Court in the O.P.467 of 1991 referred to above clearly establishes the fact that V.Parameswari, wife of T.Vadivelu is only the guardian and no adoption took place as stated in the impugned order. The learned Government Advocate produced a copy of affidavit dated 10.6.1989, said to have been sworn in by the said V.Parameswari, in which she claims that the petitioner is her adopted son. The contents of the affidavit cannot at all be true in view of filing of O.P.467 of 1991 by the same V.Parameswari, who filed the affidavit dated 10.6.1989. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the department that the petitioner is the adopted son of T.Vadivelu and V.Parameswari. In view of the said finding, the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 28.2.1996 refusing to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner is unsustainable. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after passing the impugned order dated 28.2.1996, petitioner filed O.A.No.2826 of 1996 and the same was pending before the Tribunal for the past ten years and now the same is transferred to this Court and hence the delay of ten years cannot be put against the petitioner. There is much force in the said submission. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 28.2.1996 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass orders, taking into consideration the order of this Court in O.P.No.467 of 1991 dated 25.9.1991 and also the report of the Tahsildar dated 31.10.1994, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs.