Judgment : This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in his reference No. Me.Pa 3/524/96 dated 10.1.1996. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is as follows: The petitioners father N. Krishnaswamy was appointed in the respondent Department as Mazdoor on 16.3.1968 and was posted as Tractor Cleaner in the year 1988. He went on unearned leave for two months from 3.5.1992 on medical grounds and he applied for further leave from 1.7.1992 to 20.7.1992 and subsequently extended his leave for 55 days from 25.7.1992. In view of his prolonged illness and the continuous leave he applied for, the second respondent referred the petitioners father for Medical Examination and submitted a proposal to the Medical Board for invalidating the petitioners father on Medical grounds vide his letter dated 9.10.1992. After an inordinate delay, i. e. nearly a year the Medical Board submitted a Medical Report to the respondents on 3.9.1993. While so, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.8.1995; but the first respondent rejected the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment vide his letter dated 10.1.1996 stating that his father retired after 7 months of his completing 50 years. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition. 3. In thereply affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioners father went on leave on medical grounds and due to prolonged illness, he was permitted to retire on medical invalidation with effect from 13.5.1994 forenoon. According to them, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment since his father had crossed the age of 50 years on the date of retirement i. e. 13.5.1994 due to medical invalidation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the proposal for invalidating the petitioners father on medical grounds was made as early as on 9.10.1992 and the Medical Board has caused inordinate delay by submitting its report only on 3.9.1993, the petitioner should not be penalised for the delay caused by the Medical Board in submitting its report. She has further submitted that the legal heirs of an employee who retires on the ground of medical invalidation before completing 50 years are entitled to employment and pleaded that the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment, since his father attained 50 years only in February 1995, i. e. after his retirement. 5. She has further submitted that the legal heirs of an employee who retires on the ground of medical invalidation before completing 50 years are entitled to employment and pleaded that the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment, since his father attained 50 years only in February 1995, i. e. after his retirement. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the date of birth of the petitioners father is 15.2.1943 and he had crossed the age of 50 years on the date of retirement on medical grounds. He contended that the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment stating that his father attained 50 years only in February 1995 is false and pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by Ms. A. Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners father had retired from service on the ground of medical invalidation. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioners father had crossed the age of 50 years on the date of his retirement on medical invalidation. According to the petitioner, has attained the age of 50 years only in February 1995, whereas, it is the contention of the respondents that his father had crossed the age of 50 years in February 1993 itself. 8. In this context, Rule 54A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which deals with age requirement for appointment on compassionate grounds may be referred to and the same reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special Rules for various State and Subordinate Services regarding the maximum age limit for appointment by direct recruitment, in the case of appointment of compassionate grounds, the maximum age limit shall be 35 years in respect of the sons or the unmarried daughters and 50 years in respect of wife or husband of the Government servant, who died in harness while in service, or retired from service on medical invalidation before attaining the age of fifty years, as the case may be.” 9. From a bare reading of the provision referred to above, it is clear that once an employee crosses the age of 50 years and is subsequently permitted to retire on medical invalidation, his wards application for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. From a bare reading of the provision referred to above, it is clear that once an employee crosses the age of 50 years and is subsequently permitted to retire on medical invalidation, his wards application for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. In the instant case, even assuming but without conceding the case of the respondents that the date of birth of the petitioners father is 15.2.1943 and he had crossed fifty years of age by the time he was permitted to retire on medical invalidation i. e. on 13.5.1994 and as such, the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected, there is no whisper by the second respondent as to why the Medical Board could submit its report only on 3.9.1993, especially when the petitioners father was referred to by the second respondent for medical examination as early as on 9.10.1992. It is not in dispute that the second respondent had referred the petitioners father for medical examination as early as on 9.10.1992. When the fact remains so, there is no clue as to why the Medical Board took such a long time in submitting its report only on 3.9.1993, i. e. nearly after a lapse of about a year. 10. Even as per the respondents‘ case that the date of birth of the petitioners father is 15.2.1943, he should have attained the age of 50 years on 14.2.1993. Had the medical report been furnished by the Medical Board by taking only a reasonable time, the petitioners father would have been permitted to retire probably much before he attained the age of 50 years and the petitioners claim could not have been rejected by the first respondent. Thus, since the Medical Board had taken nearly a years time to submit its report, the first respondent has stated that the petitioners claim cannot be accepted since his father was permitted to retire on medical invalidation after he completed 50 years of age. Thus, since the Medical Board had taken nearly a years time to submit its report, the first respondent has stated that the petitioners claim cannot be accepted since his father was permitted to retire on medical invalidation after he completed 50 years of age. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the delay on the part of the Medical Board to submit its report and that the first respondent has passed the impugned order by simply relying on the order of the second respondent and without applying his mind independently and thereby not considering the vital aspect that the Medical Board had inordinately delayed in submitting its report. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for consideration afresh with due application of mind and taking note of the fact that the Medical Board itself had submitted its report after a lapse of nearly a year and pass appropriate orders not later than a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as this matter relates providing compassionate appointment to mitigate the hardships of the petitioners family created due to invalidation of his father on medical grounds. In fine, the writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.