JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 27.01.2012, rejecting his request for compassionate appointment on the reason that the petitioner has not made application within the period of three years from the date of death of the employee. 2. It is seen that the petitioner's father was working as Office Assistant under the control of third respondent and died on 25.12.1997 while he was in service. It is stated that the petitioner was 11 years old at the time of death of his father and the said fact is not disputed. The petitioner's mother through her application dated 25.05.1998 sought for compassionate appointment for her. However, her request was rejected, by an order dated 18.07.2000 by the second respondent. The petitioner's mother challenged the said rejection order in O.A.No.5670 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was subsequently, transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.49525 of 2006. In that writ petition, an order came to be passed on 19.10.2011 setting aside the said order dated 31.07.2000. Apart from setting aside the said order, this Court has also observed at paragraph No.13 of the said order as follows:- “13. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the age of the petitioner is 50 years and the matter has been pending before this Court for about 10 years. He has further submitted that a representation dated 22.02.2010 was given to the second respondent to give compassionate appointment to her son. in the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 22.02.2010, for compassionate appointment, and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed with the reason as discussed supra. 3. 3. In my considered view, once this Court has directed the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner's mother dated 22.02.2010 for compassionate appointment, the present impugned order passed, challenged in this writ petition, without considering the above observation made by this Court, cannot be sustained not only on the ground that the said order is an out come of non-application of mind, but also on the reason that admittedly the mother had filed application immediately after the death of the deceased employee and even though such application was rejected, this Court has set aside the order of rejection in above said writ petition in W.P.No.49525 of 2006. Therefore, it goes without saying that the application of the mother is pending before the respondents and therefore, the subsequent application given by her on 22.02.2010 seeking for compassionate appointment to her son in view of the fact that she was 50 years by that time, cannot be construed as a separate application or fresh application and on the other hand, it has been treated as continuation of the earlier application. On this aspect this Court has already held in several decisions that when an application of the family member of the deceased is pending seeking for compassionate appointment to him or her, another application filed by another family member during the pendency of the above application cannot be construed as a fresh application and same has to be treated as continuation of the earlier application. Therefore, I find every justification to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.