Judgment Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Hemang M. Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Trusha Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, in each application. 2. These Misc. Civil Applications have been preferred by the applicants (original petitioners) of Special Civil Applications Nos. 16863 of 2010, 16871 of 2010, 16822 of 2010 and 16874 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, the prayers made in Misc. Civil Application No. 726 of 2012, only are being referred to, as below: “(A) Be pleased to direct the respondents to comply with the order dtd.29.03.2011 passed by this Hon’ble Court in group of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 16383/2010 and other allied matters within the time limit, as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.” 3. The petitions came to be disposed of by order dated 29.03.2011 of this Court. In these petitions, all the petitioners have prayed for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the prevailing policy. All the petitioners of those petitions, including the present applicants, have made applications to the respondent-Corporation for giving them appointment on the post of Clerk. During the course of hearing of the petition, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that it would consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on a post lower than that of Clerk, subject to eligibility. It was further stated that the applications made by the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment, would be considered for a lower post than that of Clerk. The applicants herein gave Undertakings to the respondent-Corporation, to the effect that they were ready and willing to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds on a post lower than that of Clerk, and thereupon, the applications made by them for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on a post lower than that of Clerk, may be considered, expeditiously. The petitions were disposed of, in the above terms, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court in case of difficulty. 4. The petitions were disposed of, in the above terms, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court in case of difficulty. 4. The petitioners have, therefore, preferred the present applications, on the ground that after filing the Undertaking as per the order dated 29.03.2011 of this Court, and after repeated reminders, no concrete decision has been taken by the respondent-Corporation. 5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed in Misc. Civil Application No. 726 of 2012 by the respondent-Corporation, wherein it has been stated that the matter has been sent for necessary approval to the State Government and that the respondent-Corporation has requested the State Government to accord necessary approval for granting compassionate appointment to eligible persons. This Court, therefore, requested the learned Assistant Government Pleader to take instructions regarding the time-frame within which the State Government would be in a position to take a decision in the matter, as recorded in the order dated 19.06.2012 of this Court. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 by the Under Secretary, Ports and Transport Department, wherein it is stated in Paragraph-8 that Respondent No. 3 has granted approval to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to give compassionate appointment to the petitioners. A copy of the letter dated 25.07.2012, whereby the approval has been accorded, is annexed as Annexure-R-I to the said affidavit-in-reply. 6. In the above circumstances, as the State Government has taken a decision to accord the approval to the proposal moved by the respondent-Corporation for appointment of the petitioners, including the applicants, for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds subject to eligibility, nothing further survives in the present applications. 7. Mr.Hemang M. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent-Corporation, has submitted that it would take the Corporation about three months to verify the details regarding the eligibility of the applicants for such appointment and to carry out the necessary verifications. 8. Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the applicants submits that the respondent-Corporation may be directed to do the needful, within a time-bound period. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent-Corporation shall verify the details of the applicants, including their eligibility, in accordance with the sanction granted by the State Government and do the needful, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applications are partly-allowed, to the above extent. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent-Corporation shall verify the details of the applicants, including their eligibility, in accordance with the sanction granted by the State Government and do the needful, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applications are partly-allowed, to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly, in each application. Direct Service of this order is permitted.