JUDGMENT : V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants to set aside the order dated 09.03.2015, made in W.P.(MD) No. 19430 of 2013. The respondent's father was working as Office Assistant under the control of the third appellant. His father died on 25.12.1997, while he was in service. At the time of death of his father, the respondent was 11 years. His mother gave an application, dated 25.05.1998, to give her an appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected by the third appellant, by an order dated 31.07.2000. An appeal was also preferred against that order and the same was rejected by the second appellant, by an order dated 21.05.2001. The respondent's mother challenged the said order before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A. No. 5670 of 2001. The said application was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 49525 of 2006. While that writ petition was pending, the respondent's mother gave a representation, dated 22.02.2010, to the second appellant to give appointment on compassionate ground to her son on the ground that she is 50 years. 2. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2011, quashed the order of rejection of the third appellant, dated 31.07.2000 and directed the second appellant to consider the representation of the respondent's mother, dated 22.02.2010, for compassionate appointment to her son, the respondent herein. As per the order of this Court, dated 19.10.2011, the second appellant considered the representation of the respondent's mother, dated 22.02.2010 and rejected the same on the ground that compassionate appointment is given only for the families living in indigent circumstances, so that they will not suffer financially and that the application was not made within three years from the date of death of the Government Servant. The respondent challenged the said rejection order in W.P.(MD) No. 19430 of 2013. This Court, by order dated 09.03.2015, allowed the said writ petition and set aside the impugned order, dated 27.01.2012 and directed the second appellant to consider the claim of the respondent, for compassionate appointment. Against the said order, dated 09.03.2015, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 3. The respondent filed caveat and the learned counsel for the respondent was present when the writ appeal came up for admission. By consent of both the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. Against the said order, dated 09.03.2015, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 3. The respondent filed caveat and the learned counsel for the respondent was present when the writ appeal came up for admission. By consent of both the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that; (a) no application was given within three years from the death of the employee or within three years from the date of attaining majority; (b) the learned Single Judge did not consider that the application of the respondent's mother, for compassionate appointment was not pending before the second appellant, for ten years. The said application was rejected on 31.07.2000. The representation of the respondent's mother, dated 22.02.2010, was considered on merits and the same was rejected as per law; and (c) the respondent's family at the time of death of the employee is not in indigent circumstances, as they had a facility of Telephone in the year 1998. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the application made by the respondent's mother was rejected on 31.07.2000, but the same was challenged by the respondent's mother in O.A. No. 5670 of 2001 and on transfer to this Court, the said O.A. was renumbered as W.P. No. 49525 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2011, disposed of the said writ petition. Therefore, the application given by the respondent's mother is deemed to be pending. The second appellant failed to consider that the representation dated 22.02.2010 given by the respondent's mother is in continuation of earlier application, dated 25.05.1998. In view of pendency of said application, the reason given by the second appellant that the respondent has not given any application within three years from the date of attaining majority and within three years from the date of death of the employee, is not correct. 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Judgment reported in A. Kamatchi Vs. The Chairman, The Chief Engineer and The Superintending Engineer--> , wherein in paragraphs 16 and 17, it has been held as follows: "16. 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Judgment reported in A. Kamatchi Vs. The Chairman, The Chief Engineer and The Superintending Engineer--> , wherein in paragraphs 16 and 17, it has been held as follows: "16. Now, cleared of the legal position, it is pertinent to note that within three years of her husband's death, Thirumalai, the mother of the appellant has applied for her appointment on compassionate ground, she was not appointed for want of vacancy, so, she was not denied job, now, she cannot be appointed because of her age, within three years of his attaining majority the appellant had applied for appointment. The legal heirs of the deceased employee, namely, appellant's mother and his sister have also given their no objection for appellant's appointment. The appellant is also well within the eligible age for appointment. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1.2.2010 and of the Writ Court, dated 13.9.2010 are unsustainable in law. 17. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1.2.2010 and of the Writ Court, dated 13.9.2010 made in W.P.(MD) No. 2374 of 2010, are set aside. The appellant is directed to produce a certificate from the competent authority as to the indigent circumstances of his family within four weeks to the third respondent and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall appoint him in any suitable post within four weeks therefrom. No costs." 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent's mother gave an application, dated 25.05.1998, for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was rejected on 31.07.2000, by the third appellant. The respondent's mother challenged the same and the same was pending before the Tribunal and subsequently, it was pending before this Court till 19.10.2011, when the writ petition was disposed of. 8. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the application given by the respondent's mother, dated 22.02.2010, is a fresh one and given beyond three years of death of father of the respondent herein. Similarly, the contention of the second appellant that the respondent did not give any application within three years from the date of attaining majority and therefore, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment, is untenable. 9. As stated above, the application of the respondent's mother was pending before this Court till 19.10.2011. Similarly, the contention of the second appellant that the respondent did not give any application within three years from the date of attaining majority and therefore, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment, is untenable. 9. As stated above, the application of the respondent's mother was pending before this Court till 19.10.2011. Pending Writ Petition, the respondent's mother gave an application for compassionate appointment to her son, the respondent herein, on 22.02.2010, on the ground that she attained the age of 50 years. The said application is in continuation of her earlier application. Therefore, both the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, are untenable. 10. The learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects in the order dated 09.03.2015 and has given valid reasons for allowing the writ petition. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as follows: "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." In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 09.03.2015, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 19430 of 2013. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.