Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner's husband was initially appointed as Gardner in Village Social Forest in Trichy Forest Division on daily wages in 1988. As per G.O.Ms.No.85, Environment and Forest Department dated 7.8.2009, the service of those persons who worked continuously for 10 years or more on daily wage basis, were directed to be regularized. Hence, the petitioner was appointed as Gardener in the time scale of pay of Rs.2500-5000 by the third respondent by an order dated 31.8.2009. Unfortunately, her husband died on 20.12.2009. 4. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.2.2012 to the third respondent for grant of compassionate appointment. Her request for compassionate appointment was rejected by the impugned order dated 1.3.2012 stating that her husband was only a temporary employee at the time of his death. 5. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the impugned order and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to give appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. According to the petitioner, the impugned order itself is wrong as the petitioner's husband was appointed as Gardener in the regular time scale of pay. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.524 of 2012 dated 16.4.2012 (The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Chennai 15 vs. G.Periasamy), wherein it is held as follows: "3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the deceased employee was appointed in the year 1982 and worked continuously without any break upto 2008, ie., he was in continuous service for about 26 years. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the services of the deceased employee were not regularized is absolutely mischievous and capricious. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment." 8. The learned counsel also relied upon my judgment in W.P.No.18434 of 2013 dated 8.7.2013 (S.Murugavel v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai 15 and another) and also the judgment rendered in W.P.No.13613 of 2011 dated 30.9.2011 (G.Periasamy vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai-15 and others) that was confirmed in the aforesaid Writ Appeal. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon my judgment in W.P.No.18434 of 2013 dated 8.7.2013 (S.Murugavel v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai 15 and another) and also the judgment rendered in W.P.No.13613 of 2011 dated 30.9.2011 (G.Periasamy vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai-15 and others) that was confirmed in the aforesaid Writ Appeal. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgments and also the order dated 31.8.2009 regularising the service of the husband of the petitioner as Gardener, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid three judgments of this Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.