Judgment :- 1. The petitioners mother was employed as a Health Supervisor and she died on 19.09.1985 in harness, while she was in service. The petitioner was a minor, when his mother died. After, he became major, he made an application for compassionate appointment. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.01.2000 on the ground that the petition for compassionate appointment was made after 12 years. It is the only ground, based on which, the application was rejected. 2. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.3369 of 2000, to quash the aforesaid order of the respondent dated 14.01.2000 and for a direction to the respondent to appoint him on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. 3. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.1012 of 2007. 4. Heard Mr.P.Mohan Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till 1995, there was no limitation for making application for compassionate appointment. First time, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, prescribing 3 years limitation for making application for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that Labour and Employment Department issued a clarification Letter No.39924/Q1/95-1, dated 11.10.1995, stating that the prescription of 3 years limitation could not apply to past cases and the limitation could apply only to the deaths that occurred after 26.06.1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application in the year 1993, after he attained majority and in support of that he has brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings dated 28.07.1993 of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Sivagasi, in this regard, which is enclosed at page 10 of the typed-set of papers. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner could not seek for compassionate appointment after 12 years and that therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records. 8. There was no limitation prescribed for making application for compassionate appointment prior to 1995. So many appointments were made without reference to limitation. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records. 8. There was no limitation prescribed for making application for compassionate appointment prior to 1995. So many appointments were made without reference to limitation. Only in the year 1995, G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, was issued prescribing 3 years limitation for making application from the date of death of the Government Servant. Even that was clarified by the subsequent Letter No.39924/Q1/95-1, dated 11.10.1995, by the Government stating that the aforesaid limitation could not apply for the past cases, if the death occurred prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.120. Hence it is also stated that based on the aforesaid clarification letter, applications are considered by the Government and compassionate appointments were given to many persons. Even assuming that 3 years period could be applicable to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.120, the limitation could start only from 26.06.1995. In that event also, he made application within 3 years period. 9. Thus, the statement in the impugned order that the application was made after 12 years is incorrect. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, from the proceedings dated 28.07.1993 of the Deputy Director of Health Services, it could be seen that the petitioner has made an application on 24.06.1993 itself, i.e., the application was made before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995. At that time there was no limitation for making application to compassionate appointment. Hence, it is not correct to state as alleged in the impugned order, that he made application after 12 years. As stated above, the impugned order is contrary to and in violation of the Government letter dated 11.10.1995. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass fresh orders, on the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orders. 11. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.