Order 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 03.01.2013, whereby and whereunder, the fourth respondent rejected her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that her mother is not a regular Government Servant. 2. The father of the petitioner worked as Head Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Service. He died on 16.08.2000. The petitioner was a minor at that point of time. The mother of the petitioner by name Anandhi made an application for compassionate appointment. She was subsequently appointed as a Cook vide order dated 14.06.2004. While the mother of the petitioner was working as Cook, she died on 02.08.2005. The petitioner immediately sent an application for compassionate appointment. The application was rejected on the ground that her mother was not a regular Government Servant as on the date of her death. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 4. The mother of the petitioner initially made an application for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband, who was a permanent Government servant, died on 16.08.2000. It is true that the mother of the petitioner was appointed later as a Cook on compassionate ground. The mother of the petitioner worked for a period of one year. It was under the said peculiar circumstances, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. The fourth respondent, in a very mechanical way rejected the application on the ground that her mother was not a permanent Government Servant. 5. While considering the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the fourth respondent should have taken note of the service rendered by the father of the petitioner as permanent Government servant and the circumstances under which her mother was appointed as a Cook. Similarly, the service rendered by the mother has to be considered in the light of the total service put in by the father of the petitioner as a Police Constable. The fourth respondent in a casual manner rejected the application on the ground that her mother is not a regular Government servant and as such, there is no question of giving her appointment. 6. This Court in W.A.(md).No.588 of 2011, dated 12 February, 2013, (Q-929, Puliyampatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Chinna Puliyampatti, Virudhunagar District, rep. The fourth respondent in a casual manner rejected the application on the ground that her mother is not a regular Government servant and as such, there is no question of giving her appointment. 6. This Court in W.A.(md).No.588 of 2011, dated 12 February, 2013, (Q-929, Puliyampatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Chinna Puliyampatti, Virudhunagar District, rep. By its Special Officer vs. S. Kalayarasi and Others), made the legal position clear that claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that services of the deceased was not regularized. 7. The fourth respondent miserably failed to consider the fact that father of the petitioner was a permanent employee and only on account of his sudden death, her mother was given employment. Subsequently, her mother also died. These material facts ought to have been taken note of by the fourth respondent. The order passed by the fourth respondent is therefore liable to be set aside. 8. The order in Na.Ka.No.D1/10938/2012, dated 03.01.2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. 9. The fourth respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner by taking into account the regular service rendered by her father as a regular Government Servant and the subsequent service of her mother. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. In the upshot, I allow the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(md). No. 1 of 2013 is closed.