Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that his father Natarajan was employed as a Wireman in the second respondent Circle. While he was on duty, on 13. 96, he had died due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Due to his death his family consisting of the petitioners mother, sister, grandfather and grandmother was in indigent circumstances. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 99. The second respondent had sent a reply, dated 212. 99, stating that the petitioner should apply for such appointment on completing 18 years of age, i.e. after 24. 2000. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted an another application, dated 5. 2000, to the second respondent. The second respondent had sent a letter to the petitioner, dated 30.5.2000, enclosing an application in the prescribed format, directing the petitioner to send the application along with the necessary certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent the application in the prescribed format enclosing the necessary certificates. Subsequently, the second respondent had sent the letters, dated 19. 2000 and 29. 2001, directing the petitioner to send the necessary certificates as required by the second respondent. After the receipt of the necessary certificates, the second respondent had directed the Assistant Executive Engineer, Avinashi, to send a report regarding the indigent circumstances of the petitioner and his family after due verification of the records submitted by the petitioner. In spite of all the necessary records having been sent by the petitioner and the necessary formalities having been completed the second respondent, all of a sudden, without giving proper reasons had passed an order, dated 29. 2002, stating that the first respondent had passed an order, dated 19. 2002, refusing to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he did not complete 18 years of age when he had made the application, on 99. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 19. 2002, is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 19. 2002, is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. In spite of the petitioner possessing all the necessary qualifications he has been denied the appointment on compassionate grounds only for the reason that the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age, within three years from the date of the death of his father i.e. 13. 96. The impugned order of the first respondent, dated 19. 2002, is opposed to B.P.No.46, Administrative Branch, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, dated 195. As per the said Board proceedings, a person seeking appointment on compassionate grounds should make an application within three years from the date of the death of the employee. Since the petitioner had made an application, on 1. 99, which is within the three years period, his application is in order. B.P.No.46, dated 110. 95, does not prescribe that the person applying for appointment on compassionate grounds should have completed 18 years of age within three years after the death of the employee. Further, according to Clause 3 and 4 of the clarification, issued in Note Order No.147941/921/R.6(2)/96, dated 16. 97, it has been stated that a person requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of an employee while in service, if he had not completed 18 years of age at the time of the death of the employee could apply for such appointment on completing 18 years of age. Further, it had been clarified that on such application being made on his/her completion of 18 years of age, such an application would be considered in view of the Rules relating to appointment at the time of the submission of the application. Even though the said clarifications had been cancelled by Note Order No.040574/530/G8/G82/2002-1, dated 4. 2002, the petitioner had made his application before the cancellation of the earlier clarification. Accordingly, his application, dated 5. 2000, submitted after he had become a major, on 24. 2000, is in accordance with the Rules and therefore, valid in the eye of law. In stead of considering his application for appointment on compassionate grounds the respondents have rejected the same without adducing sufficient reasons for such rejection. 6. Accordingly, his application, dated 5. 2000, submitted after he had become a major, on 24. 2000, is in accordance with the Rules and therefore, valid in the eye of law. In stead of considering his application for appointment on compassionate grounds the respondents have rejected the same without adducing sufficient reasons for such rejection. 6. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.1544 of 2007 (G. Karpoorasundara Pandiyan Vs. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri and another), wherein a direction had been issued to the respondents therein to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds with suitable appointment within a specified period. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 19. 2002, is set aside, and the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands partly allowed with the above directions. No costs.