Judgment 1. The petitioner's challenge in this Writ Petition is against the refusal of compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner's application had been made beyond the period of 3 years from the date of death of the petitioner's father. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father, who was working as Sanitary Supervisor in the Karur Municipality, died on 22.4.2003 in harness. He left behind the petitioner and 3 daughters and the petitioner's mother as legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner made an application immediately after the death of the father seeking for compassionate appointment. Only when the petitioner approached the second respondent to know about the status of his application filed immediately after the death of the father, he was given to understand that no such application was available with the office of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner gave a fresh application on 3.2.2006 seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by passing the impugned orders on the ground that the same was not filed within a period of 3 years from the date of death of the petitioner's father. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner's father died on 22.4.2003 while he was in service. The petitioner sent an application on 03.2.2006 by registered post seeking for compassionate appointment, however, the said application was not signed by the petitioner and therefore, the same was returned to him on 07.2.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh application only on 5.2.2007 seeking for compassionate appointment by enclosing the relevant documents. As the said application was made beyond the period of 3 years and 4 months, his request was not considered. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The admitted position is that the petitioner made an application on 03.02.2006 within 3 years from the date of death of his father. However, it is stated by the second respondent that the said application was not containing the petitioner's signature. Consequently, the same was returned to the petitioner. From the very averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it could be seen that the petitioner's application filed on 3.2.2006 was only returned on 7.2.2006. However, it is stated by the second respondent that the said application was not containing the petitioner's signature. Consequently, the same was returned to the petitioner. From the very averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it could be seen that the petitioner's application filed on 3.2.2006 was only returned on 7.2.2006. When the same was only returned, the petitioner had chosen to file a fresh application dated 5.2.2007 seeking for compassionate appointment. The said application submitted by the petitioner subsequently on 5.2.2007 cannot be taken as the date of application, when, admittedly, the petitioner had already made the application on 3.2.2006 and the same was only returned and not rejected. At any event, as the petitioner's application was made on 3.2.2006 itself, it is within 3 years period from the date of the death of the employee. I consider that the petitioner's application has to be necessarily considered by the authorities instead of rejecting the same on the ground that the same was made beyond 3 years. 6. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents are set aside and the matter is remitted back to them for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say while considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the other required qualifications for the purpose of which the petitioner seeks compassionate appointment has to be gone into it and accordingly, suitable orders can be passed by the respondents. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.