( 1 ) THE petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned communication cum order dated 9th/10th november 2000 bearing no. PV. 14/r1/d. 26918/1. 442/2000 - 01/1063 vide Annexure - D, issued by Senior Accounts Officer - Officer of the third respondent herein and the communication dated 30th November 2000 vide annexure - E issued by the Commissioner, agriculture Department, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has assailed the correctness of the impugned order cum communication dated 3rd October 2000 vide annexure - O issued by the Director of Agriculture with a further direction, directing the second respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner or petitioner's son with all consequential benefits. ( 2 ) THE only grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the husband of the petitioner herein was appointed in the karnataka Government Agriculture department as per the appointment order dated 17th February 1961 as bulldozer operator' on regular basis and he has worked up to 31st January 1972 in the said department. While he was so working in the Engineering wing of the agriculture Department, the staff, machinery and the assets were transferred to the Mysore State Agro industries Corporation as per the Official Memorandum dated 26th November 1971, which is now called the 'karnataka Agro Industries corporation' ('kaic for short ). As per the terms of the said Official memorandum dated 26th november 1971, the emoluments and service rendered in the agirculture Department was protected and the same was counted for seniority and pensionary benefits etc. While the husband of the petitioner was working as such, in view of the option offered on 1st february 1972, petitioner's husband gave a declaration on 30th May 1972 that, the entire service rendered in government up to 1st February 1972 be allowed to count for the purpose of pension and gratuity as per clause 4 (ii) of Notice of option. Thereafter, pursuant to the transfer of the petitioner's husband to the respondent No. 2 -Corporation, petitioner's husband died on 27th January 1991. Consequent upon the death of the husband of the petitioner, the family pension of Rs. Thereafter, pursuant to the transfer of the petitioner's husband to the respondent No. 2 -Corporation, petitioner's husband died on 27th January 1991. Consequent upon the death of the husband of the petitioner, the family pension of Rs. 545/ - per month was sanctioned by the Provident fund Commissioner by counting only the service rendered in the second respondent - KAIC and that, the service rendered from 17th February 1961 to 31st January 1972 in the Agriculture department of the government of Karnataka was not counted for granting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by the respondents. Accordingly, the wife of the late employee - The petitioner herein was constrained to submit the representation to the respondents 1 and 2 for sanction of the family pension in respect of her late husband, sri M. D. Inamdar. The said request of the petitioner herein was forwarded by the Personal manager of the KAIC by his letter dated 8th October 1992 to the first respondent herein - The Director of agriculture in Karnataka vide annexure - F. Instead of considering the recommendation forwarded by the Personal Manager of the KAIC regarding the entitlement of pensionary benefits from 17th February 1961 to 31st January 1972, the Officer of the third respondent has issued the impugned order cum communication dated 9th/10th November 2000 unilaterally without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to have her say in the matter. Consequently, the Commissioner of agriculture Department has issued the impugned communication dated 30th November 2000 vide annexure - E stating that, since the family pension of Rs. 545/ - per month has already been sanctioned by the commissioner of Provident fund, she is not entitled for any further pensionary benefits from the government. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) THE further case of petitioner is that, petitioner has submitted the application before the second respondent for appointment to one of her sons on compassionate grounds. Instead of considering the said request made by petitioner on behalf of her son for appointment on compassionate grounds, the General manager (P) and Secretary of the second respondent by an office order dated 21st October 1991 vide Annexure - J, has sanctioned a sum of rs. 15,000/ - as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of employment. Instead of considering the said request made by petitioner on behalf of her son for appointment on compassionate grounds, the General manager (P) and Secretary of the second respondent by an office order dated 21st October 1991 vide Annexure - J, has sanctioned a sum of rs. 15,000/ - as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of employment. Immediately, after receipt of the same, she has sent a reply stating that, she has not taken the said compensation amount of rs. 15,000/ - and she has reiterated her request for appointment on compassionate grounds for one of her sons on 7th May 1998 vide Annexure - L. Further, petitioner has also sent the 'no objection' letter from all her children including herself on 19th August 2000 vide Annexure - K. In spite of the said request, the competent authority has not considered the said request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to issue the legal notice to the Chairman and Managing director, Karnataka Agro Industries corporation Limited, Bangalore on 28th February 2001 vide Annexure - N. Therefore, it is the case of petitioner that, in spite of the representations and the legal notice sent by her, requesting the authority to consider her request for appointment of her eldest son on compassionate grounds, the authority has rejected her request on the ground that, the Agriculture department is merged with the second respondent - Corporation and therefore, she is not entitled for appointment. Assailing the correctness of the impugned orders cum communications dated 9th/10th november 2000, 30th November 2000 and 3rd October 2000 vide Annexure - D, E and O respectively, issued by respondents 1 to 3, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra. ( 4 ) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. ( 4 ) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. ( 5 ) AFTER careful evaluation of the relevant material available on file and the grounds urged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, it emerges that, petitioner has placed reliance on the Official memorandum dated 26th November 1971 wherein under clause 4 (ii), petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits from 17th February 1961 to 31st January 1972 and this fact is clear as per the letter dated 8th october 1992 forwarded by the KAIC to the first respondent for grant of family pension, DCRG claims, etc, in respect of the late husband of petitioner Sri M. D. Inamdar, who was working as E -Assistant cum Bulldozer Operator, officer of the Manager, Bijapur. The third respondent and the Commissioner of Agriculture Department, instead of considering the case of the petitioner with reference to the official Memorandum dated 26th November 1971, has proceeded to issue the impugned communications cum orders vide Annexure - D and e in one line, stating that, petitioner has been granted PF Pension and hence she is not entitled for pensionary benefits, without reference to the specific request made by petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits from 17th February 1961 to 31st January 1972, which period was served by her late husband in the Agriculture department, Govt. of karnataka. After careful perusal of the impugned Annexure D and E, it is manifest on the face of the said document that, the decision taken by the authorities is unilateral in nature, without issuing notice and without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner if reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner, petitioner might have substantiated her case as to how she is entitled for pensionary benefits for the period from 17th February 1961 to 31st January 1972. Therefore, in view of non conduct of proper enquiry, for not affording reasonable opportunity and for gross violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned communication cum order vide Annexure D and E cannot be sustained and hence, they are liable to be set aside. Therefore, in view of non conduct of proper enquiry, for not affording reasonable opportunity and for gross violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned communication cum order vide Annexure D and E cannot be sustained and hence, they are liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) SO far as the request made by petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to one of her sons is concerned, I am of the view that, the second respondent has issued the communication at annexure - J as per the order passed by the Chairman cum Managing director (P) and Secretary dated 24th September 1991, by sanctioning a sum of Rs. 15000/ - as compensation in lieu of employment. The said amount awarded has not been accepted by the petitioner and in turn, she has requested for appointment to one of hers sons on compassionate grounds vide Annexure - K. The petitioner has submitted representation to the second respondent and thereafter, got issued legal notice through the counsel on 28th February 2001. The said request of petitioner has not been considered. Instead of considering the said request, the second respondent has passed the order for payment of compensation of Rs. 15,000/ -in lieu of employment. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Agriculture also has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that, since the Agriculture department is merged with the second respondent, her request cannot be considered. The said reasoning given by the first respondent is unsustainable. The petitioner has specifically stated that, she has not accepted the compensation amount awarded by second respondent, but she wants appointment to one of her sons on compassionate grounds. The first respondent instead of considering her request has proceeded to pass the impugned communication cum order vide annexure - O. The said reasoning given by first respondent cannot be accepted on the ground that, the said authority has proceeded to pass the order contrary to the material available on file. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, I am of the considered view that, the impugned communication cum order dated 3rd October 2000 vide Annexure - O cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, the impugned order cum communication passed by third respondent dated 9th/10th November 2000 bearing no. PV. 14/r1/d - 26918/1. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, the impugned order cum communication passed by third respondent dated 9th/10th November 2000 bearing no. PV. 14/r1/d - 26918/1. 442/2000 - 01/1063 vide Annexure - D and the impugned communication cum order dated 30th November 2000 bearing No. SIBBANDI - 1 : PINCHANI - 2:23:92 - 93 issued by the Commissioner, agriculture Department, vide Annexure - E and the impugned communication cum order dated 3rd October 2000 bearing No. SIBBANDI - 2 ; ANUKAMPA - 57:2000 - 2001 vide Annexure - O passed by first respondent are all hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to first respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to petitioner and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 9 ) FURTHER, petitioner herein is permitted to submit a detailed consolidated representation before the first respondent in accordance with the representations and the legal notice issued earlier to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such representation is filed by petitioner, the first respondent herein is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law and in compliance of the direction issued as above. ( 10 ) WITH these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of.