JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner's husband, while serving as Semi Skilled Workman in Mettur Thermal Power Station of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, died on 09.03.1995, leaving behind his wife, three children and his mother. Thereafter, when the petitioner's son Senthil Kumar made an application on 09.06.1998 to the respondent Board to provide employment on compassionate ground, he was advised to submit another application in the prescribed format. Accordingly, he made an application dated 23.09.1999 in the printed format enclosing all the necessary certificates. On receipt of the application, the respondent sent a letter dated 30.05.2000 directing to submit two more copies of documents enclosed along with the application dated 23.09.1999. Accepting the said letter dated 30.05.2000 issued by the respondent Board, the petitioner has also furnished all the requisite documents as required by the respondent. But, all of a sudden, the respondent Board passed the impugned order dated 01.06.2001 stating that the representation was submitted after the period of limitation and her son did not complete 18 years, when the original application was made on 09.06.1998. The said impugned order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed two fold submissions; Firstly, it was submitted that as per the condition No.3 of the Board Proceeding No.46, dated 13.10.1995, application for compassionate appointment should be submitted within 3 years from 13.10.1995, in the case of death of an employee occurred prior to 13.10.1995. Accordingly, the petitioner, after the death of her husband Late T.Shivashanmugam on 09.03.1995, made a representation on 09.06.1998. Therefore, the said application is well within the time limit prescribed by the B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995. Secondly, on the same issue, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of N.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai, and others (2001-Writ L.R.603), wherein it was held that before the Board's proceedings made in B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, there was no minimum period prescribed within which the application for compassionate has to be made, however, only under the above said circular, the minimum period of three years was prescribed and that too in case of already expired staff, the dependant can apply within three years from the date of issue of the order. Therefore, on that basis, the petitioner's son has submitted his application on 09.06.1998, which is well within the three years time period from the date of B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, and on that basis, she 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 09.06.1998 after the death of her husband on 09.03.1995, the petitioner did not give correct information with regard to the age of her son, therefore, when the legal heir of the deceased was not possessing the requisite age qualification at the time of making her application on 09.06.1998, the respondent Board was not in a position to consider her request for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, when the petitioner's son made an application again on 23.09.1999, the respondent Board has rejected his 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 Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, wherein the condition No.3 states that in the case of already expired staff while in service, the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of the proceedings dated 13.10.1995. 6. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of N.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai, and others (2001-Writ L.R.603), wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 4 has held as follows:- "I have considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel. It is not in dispute that the appointment on compassionate ground is governed by the guidelines prescribed by the Board, by way of Board's proceedings. Before the Board's proceedings made in B.P.Ms.(PB) No.46 (Adm.Branch) dated 13.10.1995, there was no minimum period prescribed within which the application for compassionate appointment has to be made. However, only under the above said circular, the minimum period of three years was prescribed and that too in case of already expired staff, the dependant can apply within three years from the date of issue of the order. However, only under the above said circular, the minimum period of three years was prescribed and that too in case of already expired staff, the dependant can apply within three years from the date of issue of the order. In this case, the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment on 18.6.1997 well within the period of three years. In the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent, there is no minimum period prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground and the Supreme Court while considering the application has held that there cannot be a request for compassionate appointment after a lapse of ten years. However, in this case, by vistas of Board's proceedings dated 13.10.95, the respondent has prescribed the minimum period of three years for the dependants to apply for employment assistance of the staff already expired, from the date of issue of the said order. When the applicants like the petitioner have been given the period of three years to make such a request, the petitioner's request which was made on 18.6.97 is well within the period of three years as per the above circular and therefore the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay of 19 years. In that the view of the matter, I do not find any justification in rejecting the request of the petitioner only on the sole ground of delay of 19 years. Accordingly, the impugned order of the respondent is set aside. However, the respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on merits with reference to the circular which are in force for appointment on compassionate ground including the Board's proceedings No.46 (Adm.Branch) dated 13.10.1995 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order." As referred to the above said judgment, in the case on hand, the petitioner's son had applied for compassionate appointment on 09.06.1998, which is well within the period of three years as per condition No.3 of the Board's proceedings dated 13.10.1995, since the petitioner's husband died on 09.03.1995. Therefore, when any person like the petitioner has been given the period of three years to make such a request for compassionate appointment, the petitioner's request which was made on 09.06.1998 is well within the period of three years as per the above circular and therefore, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. 7. Accordingly, as held by this Court in the above said judgment, I am of the view that the petitioner's case deserves consideration and 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 Board's proceedings dated 13.10.1995. In the result, this Court, by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2001 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.