Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 19.08.2011 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider him for employment on compassionate ground. 2. The petitioner's father was working as Line Inspector in the respondent Electricity Board and died on 27.09.2001. The petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment to the petitioner through her letter dated 09.03.2004. However, the respondent did not consider. On the other hand, after a period of seven years, the present impugned order came to be passed rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the application was not made within a period of three years from the date of death of the father. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order referred to the application dated 13.07.2011 of the petitioner as though the same was the original application filed seeking for compassionate appointment without considering the fact that the petitioner's mother had already applied seeking for compassionate appointment as early as on 09.03.2004 and therefore, the reason stated in the impugned order is factually not correct. She has also invited the attention of this Court to the copy of the representation given by the petitioner's mother, dated 09.03.2004, with the acknowledgment card. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner's mother on 09.03.2004 was omitted to be considered by the third respondent while passing the impugned order and therefore, appropriate order may be passed by this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The petitioner's father was working as Line Inspector and died on 27.09.2001. Within three years, the petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment for the petitioner through her letter dated 09.03.2004. Making of such application is evident from the perusal of the said application as well as acknowledgment card which are made available in the additional typed set of papers. Therefore, the fact remains that the application seeking for compassionate appointment was made from the family of the deceased within a period of three years. Making of such application is evident from the perusal of the said application as well as acknowledgment card which are made available in the additional typed set of papers. Therefore, the fact remains that the application seeking for compassionate appointment was made from the family of the deceased within a period of three years. When that being the position, the third respondent is not justified in rejecting the application only on the ground that it was made beyond the period of three years by taking note of the petitioner's request dated 13.07.2011 as original application. Needless to say that such request can be considered and construed only as a continuation of the application made by the mother of the petitioner as early as on 09.03.2004 and consequently, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking compassionate appointment. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner also should produce the certificate to the third respondent indicating that the petitioner's family is still under the circumstances warranting financial assistance from the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.