Judgment 1. The application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected belatedly by the third respondent under the pretext that as on the date on which the application was made, he was only a minor. 2. The petitioner is stated to be the legal representative of Thiru.M.Chelladurai, who was a Village Assistant in Thalapatti Village of Karur District. The father of the petitioner died on 19.06.2006. He is survived by the petitioner, his brother, mother and grandmother. 3. The petitioner submitted an application on 11.04.2007 for compassionate appointment. The third respondent kept the application pending for years together and ultimately by way of the impugned order, it was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was only 17 years on the date on which application was made and as such, he is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 5. The Government have issued series of orders directing the authorities to consider and dispose of applications submitted for compassionate appointments, without any delay. 6. The third respondent is well aware on receipt of the application that the age of the petitioner is 17 years. Nothing prevented the third respondent from rejecting the request immediately after the receipt of application. The third respondent kept the application pending and has given a hope to the petitioner that he would be given appointment on compassionate ground in the near future. In the mean while, the Government have issued a letter dated 04.05.2010 to the effect that applications for compassionate appointment should be given within a period of three years and the candidate should be a major. 7. Subsequent issuance of a letter dated 04.05.2010 cannot be a reason to reject the application, which was submitted as early as on 11.04.2007. The application should have been considered on the basis of the Government Orders, which were in force as on the date on which the application was made. It is also matter of record that the petitioner has become major, by the time, the application was considered by the third respondent. This vital aspect was not taken note of by the third respondent. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. 9. It is also matter of record that the petitioner has become major, by the time, the application was considered by the third respondent. This vital aspect was not taken note of by the third respondent. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. 9. The third respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment treating his application valid. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the upshot, I allow the writ petition. No costs.