Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. .2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the third respondent, dated 10. 2002, rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. It has been stated that the father of the petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Assistant under the third respondent and he had died in harness, on 19. 1994. The petitioners father M. Jagadeesan, had joined in the service of the Tamil Nadu electricity Board in the year, 1971, as a Junior Assistant in the Revenue branch, Chinnamanur. Subsequently, he was promoted and he was working as a Selection Grade Assistant at the time of his death, on 19. 1994. the petitioners father was 51 years old at the time of his death and he would have been superannuated from service, on 19. 2001. The petitioner, his mother and his elder sister were his dependents at the time of his death. The petitioner was 12 years old and his elder sister was 14 years old at the time of death of their father. .4. It has been further stated that, on 26. 1997, the petitioners mother had sent a representation to the third respondent seeking employment for his sister, on compassionate grounds. By the third respondents reply, dated 8. 1997, the petitioners mother was asked to meet the Assistant Executive Engineer/Distribution/Bodi with copies of the necessary certificates, along with the other relevant particulars. Thereafter, since the sister of the petitioner had got married, the petitioners mother had requested the third respondent to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. To the said letter written by the petitioners mother, the third respondent had sent a reply, on 4. 1999, asking the petitioner to apply for such appointment after he had completed 18 years of age and stating that the application made on behalf of his sister, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, had been cancelled. Further, the third respondent, by his letter, dated 8/19. 2000, had informed the petitioner that the Assistant Executive Engineer/Distribution/Bodinayakkanur, had been appointed as the enquiry officer to verify the details about the family circumstances of the petitioner for providing employment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was asked to produce the relevant certificates before the enquiry officer. Further, the third respondent, by his letter, dated 8/19. 2000, had informed the petitioner that the Assistant Executive Engineer/Distribution/Bodinayakkanur, had been appointed as the enquiry officer to verify the details about the family circumstances of the petitioner for providing employment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was asked to produce the relevant certificates before the enquiry officer. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner had produced all the certificates, as required by the third respondent. After the enquiry, based on the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the third respondent had found that the petitioner was eligible to be given employment on compassionate grounds and he had sent his recommendations to the second respondent, by his letter, dated 24. 2002. While so, the third respondent, by his letter, Ka.No.Vu.Ni.Aa/Ni.Pi.4/E.Ni.Vu/Ko.Va.Ve/A13593/02, dated 10. 2002, had stated that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not applied within three years from the date of the death of his father and that he had not completed 18 years of age, within three years from the date of death of his father. 5. It has been further stated that the petitioners mother had applied for employment on behalf of his sister, on 26. 1997. Though the enquiry was over in the month of September, 1997, the petitioners sister was not given employment till the year, 1999. Since the petitioners sister had got married, the petitioners mother had sent a representation to the third respondent in the month of August, 1998, to cancel the application made on behalf of the petitioners sister, requesting the third respondent to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The application made on behalf of the petitioners sister was well within three years and she had completed 18 years of age, within three years, from 110. 1995, the date on which permanent B.P.M.S. (FB) No.46 (Adm. Branch) was issued. The petitioner was hoping that he would be given employment on compassionate grounds, since the third respondent had conducted the enquiry and thereafter, recommended the name of the petitioner for such appointment. If it had been made known, earlier, that the petitioner would not be appointed on compassionate grounds, the petitioners mother would not have requested for the cancellation of the application made on behalf of the petitioners sister. If it had been made known, earlier, that the petitioner would not be appointed on compassionate grounds, the petitioners mother would not have requested for the cancellation of the application made on behalf of the petitioners sister. Further, the petitioner had passed the Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and that his family is in indigent circumstances. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the impugned order, dated 10. 2002, had been passed on the basis of the orders passed by the Board in Permanent B.P.(FB)No.46 (Admn.Br), dated 110. 1995, wherein it has been stated that the application for compassionate appointment should be made within three years from the date of the death of the employee. However, in the case of an employee, who had already expired while in service, the dependent should apply for employment assistance, within three years from the date of the said order. In the case of the petitioner his father had died, on 19. 1994, and his mother had made a representation, on 26. 1997, requesting the third respondent to provide compassionate appointment to her daughter J. Malarvizhi. Thereafter, the petitioners mother had sent a representation, dated nil, received by the office of the third respondent, on 8. 1998, requesting for the job assistance to the petitioner, on compassionate grounds, since she had arranged the marriage for her daughter. Therefore, the job proposal to the petitioners sister J. Malarvizhi had been cancelled, on 4. 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner had made an application on 16. 2000, for compassionate appointment, after the prescribed time limit of three years. The said application had been rejected by the third respondent, on 10. 2002, on the ground that the petitioner had not made the application within three years from the date of the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 110. 1995. 7. It has been further stated that the petitioners father had died in the year, 1994, and therefore, the application made for compassionate appointment after the lapse of a number of years cannot be acceptable, as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Boards Rules in force. Since the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds had been formulated for helping the family of the deceased employee in distress, such an appointment cannot be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the death of the employee. Since the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds had been formulated for helping the family of the deceased employee in distress, such an appointment cannot be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the death of the employee. Since the petitioners father had died in service, on 19. 1994, and the petitioner had made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds only, on 16. 2000, and since it was not in accordance with the guidelines governing compassionate appointments, the said application had been rejected by the third respondent, on 10. 2002. The said application made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds had been made, belatedly, after the prescribed time limit, as per B.P.No.46. Therefore, the third respondent had rightly rejected the petitioners claim. Since the compassionate appointments are to be given to a member of the family of a deceased employee to help the family to tide over the crisis, such an appointment cannot be granted after the lapse of a number of years. Therefore, the order of the third respondent, dated 10. 2002, rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, is in accordance with law. 8. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the father of the petitioner had been employed as a Selection Grade Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he had died, on 19. 1994, while he was in service. The petitioner had made an application, on 16. 2000 and it had been rejected by the third respondent, on 10. 2002, on the ground that it had been made, belatedly, after the prescribed time limit, as provided under Permanent B.P.(FB)No.46 (Admn.Br), dated 110. 1995. Though it has been stated that the application should be made within a period of three years from the date of the death of the employee, it has been stated, in paragraph 3 of the said Board proceedings, that in the case of a staff, who had expired while in service, the dependents should apply for employment assistance, within three years from the date of the said order. However, it was clarified by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), by his letter, dated 16. 1997, which reads as follows: "3. However, it was clarified by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), by his letter, dated 16. 1997, which reads as follows: "3. It is informed that while seeking employment within 3 years from date of the death of the employee the person has not completed 18 years of age, has to seek employment again after he completes the 18 years of age. 4. After completing 18 years if a person submits his application they are informed that their cases will be as per the orders of the Board existing at that time." 9. Later, the above mentioned paragraphs had been cancelled by a circular, dated 4. 2002, issued by the respondent Board. In the present case, the petitioner had made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds after he had attained the age of majority, on 16. 2000, in accordance with the clarification issued by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), by his letter, dated 16. 1997. The petitioner had submitted his application before paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said letter had been cancelled by the circular, dated 4. 2002, issued by the respondent Electricity Board. 10. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 10. 2006, made in W.A.No.1485 of 2003, (The Chairman and another Vs. G. Gopalakrishnan), which had arisen under similar circumstances, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had extended the time limit prescribed for the respondent to consider the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board had no serious objections for this Court passing a similar order directing the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 29. 2000, for appointment on compassionate grounds. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 10. 2002, rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, is set aside and the third respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 29. 2000, for appointment on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. No costs.