Judgment : 1. The petitioner earlier made an application for compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected by the third respondent vide order dated 08.03.2012 on the ground that her husband was not a permanent employee of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another application on the strength of the order dated 01.03.2011, whereby and whereunder, her husband was appointed as an Assessor Grade-II by sanctioning time scale of pay. The said application is now pending before the fourth respondent. 2. There is no dispute that the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was earlier rejected by the fourth respondent on the ground that her husband was not a permanent employee of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The fourth respondent failed to consider the order dated 01.03.2011, whereby and whereunder, the deceased employee was appointed to the post of Assessor Grade-II. 3. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is technically correct in its contention that unless the earlier order is challenged in the manner known to law, there is no question of considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's earlier application was rejected on the ground that her husband was not a permanent employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The subsequent application was made on the strength of the appointment order dated 01.03.2011. The petitioner therefore would qualify for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The fourth respondent, without considering the order dated 01.03.2011, rejected the application on the basis of a non-existing ground. The order dated 01.03.2011 makes it clear that the husband of the petitioner was an Assessor Grade-II and he was brought under regular pay scale. Such being the position, the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment. I am therefore of the view that the issue requires consideration by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 6. In the result, a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus is issued, directing the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner, in the light of the order dated 01.03.2011. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.