ORDER : 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent with reference to Letter No. 125165/1232/G8/G82/2003-2, dated 13.12.2004, quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for suitable post on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is that his father Late Nagarajan, while in employment of the respondents/TNEB as Helper in the Office of the Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance at Oddanchatram Unit, died on 01.03.1989 as a result of falling down from the Electricity Post. The deceased/-employee left behind him a Son-the petitioner herein, who was 9 year old at that time, Wife, two Daughters and Father. With the meagre terminal benefits and the compensation received, the family could not come out of the penurious position which compelled the petitioner's mother to move a petition to the Board in 1990, however, while rejecting the request for want of qualification, the Board advised the petitioner's mother to submit an application for the petitioner immediately after attaining majority. As per such advise, the petitioner herein, after completing 18 years, made representations dated 11.08.1998 and 18.08.1998 followed by a representation, dated 30.12.1999, by his mother, requesting for compassionate appointment to the son. By letter dated 14.01.2000, the 3rd respondent asked the petitioner's mother to submit the application for compassionate appointment in the given format. By subsequent letter, dated 29.01.2000, the said authority required the petitioner to furnish various documents including indigent certificate from the Tahsildar and no-objection certificate from other legal heirs. Even after complying with such requirement, unfortunately, the 3rd respondent by referring to B.P. No. 46, dated 13.10.1995, and stating that the petitioner did not apply within three years, rejected the request. Despite that, the petitioner was repeatedly making representations but in vain, hence, he filed W.P. No. 37764 of 2001 and, by order dated 21.12.2001, a direction was issued to the Board to consider his request within six weeks and consequently, by order dated, 29.04.2002, the petitioner's plea was rejected. The petitioner filed one another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 26936 of 2004. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2004, the first respondent turned down the request for compassionate appointment. 2. The petitioner filed one another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 26936 of 2004. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2004, the first respondent turned down the request for compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that often, the petitioner clearly projected his grievance before the Board by pointing out that in the year 2000, already sunk in poverty, with great difficulty, he pursued and passed Diploma in Electric Engineering, however, his request made in the year 1998 after passing the SSLC was never considered positively. Also by pointing out that in terms of B.P. Ms. No. 3, dated 09.01.2007, the limitation period of three years was deleted and therefore, at least now, his plea can be considered, the petitioner again made representation to the Board on 14.02.2007. By letter dated 03.03.2007, R-3 directed the petitioner to submit Legal Heir Certificate and other documents. Unfortunately, in the meanwhile, the above B.P. was also withdrawn. According to the learned counsel, right from 1998, the petitioner has been struggling to get the compassionate appointment and never, the authorities approached the case justly even though the penurious position of the family is substantiated by the petitioner through the certificates produced by him along with the petitions. According to him, this being a pathetic case, absolute interference is called for and a suitable direction is issued so that at least now, the long-standing grievance is redressed. 3. Learned counsel for the Board states that the guideline of the Board in B.P. No. 46, dated 13.10.1995, provides 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 issue of the B.P. In this case, as on the date of death of the employee, the petitioner completed hardly 9 years. Therefore, rightly, his application was rejected. Since the impugned letter was based on the above guideline, the present plea of the petitioner may be turned down. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side. From the records, it is seen that after the demise of the employee on 01.03.1989, his wife viz. the petitioner's mother, citing penurious circumstances, made an application in 1990 followed by a letter, dated 17.09.1991, seeking compassionate appointment and such application was rejected by the Board stating that she did not pass 8th Standard. From the records, it is seen that after the demise of the employee on 01.03.1989, his wife viz. the petitioner's mother, citing penurious circumstances, made an application in 1990 followed by a letter, dated 17.09.1991, seeking compassionate appointment and such application was rejected by the Board stating that she did not pass 8th Standard. Only in these circumstances, without any support to take care of the family, the son/petitioner, immediately after attaining majority, applied for job on compassionate ground and it was rejected as mentioned above. In a decision rendered by this Court in J. Jeba Mary vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the Chief Engineer (Personnel) and Superintending Engineer, a learned Judge of this Court, while dealing with almost an identical case, referred to a decision of the Apex Court, dated 30.03.2010, rendered in Civil Case Nos. 5068-5069 of 2009, which is a direct answer to the issue involved herein. Relevant portions from the above decision of the learned single Judge with the extract of the Supreme Court's order dated 30.03.2010 are given below:- (e) Three writ petitions were disposed of by me i.e. W.P. Nos. 19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order dated 24.7.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the above three writ petitions, which were allowed, writ appeal was filed against one writ petition in W.A. No. 1206 of 2006 while implementing the order in respect of other two cases. The said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 29.9.2006. The respondent in the writ appeal viz. J. Karthick filed review application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 25.8.2008. Against the dismissal of the writ appeal as well as rejection of review application, the said J. Karthick filed SLP (C) No. 2004-2005/2009 and on 23.2.2009 the SLPs were tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 viz. Indiraniammal case. Subsequently the said SLP was numbered as Civil Case Nos. 5068-5069 of 2009 which was allowed on 30.3.2010 and the said order reads as follows: Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed in the review application. 5068-5069 of 2009 which was allowed on 30.3.2010 and the said order reads as follows: Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed in the review application. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. No costs. (Emphasis Supplied) 13. From the above referred decisions passed by this Court in series of cases on the same ground, it is evident that the similar grounds raised by the respondents that the petitioner has not filed application seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of her father and that she has not completed 18 years of age within three years are not valid grounds to deny appointment on compassionate ground as no one in her family is employed and the family of the petitioner is in indigent circumstance even today as certified by the Revenue Officials. 5. In the present case also, at the time of the death of the employee, the son/petitioner was minor and her mother applied well within time, however, the application was rejected for want of educational qualification. Even now, it is not the case of the Board that the family is alleviated of the financial crisis. Therefore, when the petitioner made the application immediately on attaining majority, since the mother of the petitioner had already applied in time, the process is continuing and particularly when the Board did not negative the plea on the ground that the family is financially sound enough to maintain itself, 1 am of the considered view that the Board is not justified in turning down the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It must be highlighted here, in matters like this, the Board cannot be allowed to raise technical objections when facts are admitted that the deceased employee died while performing his duties and that the family is still in indigent circumstances. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Board is hereby directed to pass orders on the application of the petitioner, after usual verification of the certificates, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.