Judgment :- 1. The petitioner's husband, while serving as Wireman in Mettur Electricity Distribution of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, died on 29.06.1998, leaving behind his wife and two daughters. Thereafter, when the petitioner made an application on 17.09.1999 to the respondent Board to provide employment to her daughter Sathiya on compassionate ground, finding no response from the respondent Board, again, the petitioner has sent another representation dated 28.09.2001. On receipt of the representation, the respondent sent a letter dated 12.10.2001 directing the petitioner to submit death certificate of her husband, legal heir certificate, certificates relating to the educational qualification of her daughter and the order sanctioning the terminal benefits. Accepting the said letter dated 12.10.2001 issued by the respondent Board, the petitioner has also furnished all the requisite documents along with her representation dated 03.11.2001, seeking compassionate appointment to her daughter. But, all of a sudden, the respondent board passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2001 stating that the representation was submitted after the period of limitation and her daughter did not complete 18 years, when the original application was made on 17.09.1999. The said impugned order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed three fold submissions; Firstly, it was submitted that on the basis of Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, the petitioner should submit her application within a period of three years from the date of death of the breadwinner. Accordingly, the petitioner, after the death of her husband Late Arumugam on 29.06.1998, made a representation on 17.09.1999. Therefore, the said application is well within the time limit prescribed by the B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995. Secondly, it was contended that though the petitioner's daughter Sathiya was not a major on the date of making the application i.e., on 17.09.1999, the petitioner is still entitled to get the benefit as per the respondent Board's proceedings dated 14.06.1997, wherein it was mentioned that if anyone on the date of submitting application is not a major, again on attaining the majority, namely 18 years, the said candidate can once again make an application for employment. Accordingly, when the petitioner made an application on 28.09.2001, the reasoning given in the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner ignoring their own proceedings dated 14.06.1997, is liable to be set aside, as it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, when the petitioner made an application on 28.09.2001, the reasoning given in the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner ignoring their own proceedings dated 14.06.1997, is liable to be set aside, as it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Thirdly, on the same issue, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of T.Meer Ismail Ali Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai (2004 (3) CTC 120), wherein it was held that if any candidate files an application seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of breadwinner, but before reaching the age of 18 years, subsequently, if the said candidate renews seeking compassionate appointment on reaching the age of 18 years, the said application cannot be rejected on the ground that the said application is a belated one. With the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though the petitioner made an application on 17.09.1999 after the death of her husband on 29.06.1998, the petitioner did not give correct information with regard to the age of her daughter, therefore, when the legal heir of the deceased was not possessing the requisite age qualification at the time of making her application on 17.09.1999, the respondent Board was not in a position to consider her request for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, when the petitioner made an application again on 28.09.2001, the respondent Board has rejected her application on the ground that the application was filed belatedly, as the respondent board has to strict to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Board's proceedings dated 13.10.1995 and on the above note, he has prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is relevant to look into the Board's proceedings dated 14.06.1997, wherein the respondent Board has vividly stated that if anyone on the date of submitting an application is not a major, again on attaining the majority, namely 18 years, the said candidate can once again make an application for employment. 5. It is relevant to look into the Board's proceedings dated 14.06.1997, wherein the respondent Board has vividly stated that if anyone on the date of submitting an application is not a major, again on attaining the majority, namely 18 years, the said candidate can once again make an application for employment. According to the said proceedings dated 14.06.1997, the petitioner, due to rejection of her representation dated 17.09.1999, which was filed well within the three years period, as her father died on 29.06.1998, has filed another representation dated 28.09.2001 requesting for compassionate appointment. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner has submitted her application on 17.09.1999, which is well within three years period, since her subsequent application dated 28.09.2001 made on attaining the age of majority is covered by the respondent's Board proceedings dated 14.06.1997. 6. Further, this Court, while considering T.Meer Ismail Ali's case (cited supra), after taking note of the fact that the breadwinner passed away on 13.04.1993 due to cardiac arrest while in service and subsequently, when the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 05.08.1997, the said application on being rejected by the respondent Board, thereafter, when the said applicant after acquiring a Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and after completing 18 years of age in 2000, made an application for compassionate appointment on 04.07.2000, held that the said application should not have been rejected. Further, it was also held that it was a deserving case where the respondent should have shown some compassion while considering the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. Therefore, in view of the above said judgment rendered by this Court, I am of the view that the petitioner's case deserves consideration inasmuch as she had diligently made a claim at the first instance in the year 1999 when her daughter was still minor and thereafter, she being a widow made another application soon after her daughter attained the age of 18, in the year 2001, accordingly, the rejection of the application on the ground that it was not made within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee is not justified, as it goes against the department's own proceedings dated 14.06.1997. 7. 7. In the result, this Court, by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the respondent, allows the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners' application within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.