JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. - Though these matters are coming up in the Orders list, with the consent of learned counsels on both the sides, these matters are heard and disposed of finally. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of Harthimatta Santhosh Kumar, who was working as Peon at the 5th respondent-College. Sri. Harthimatta Santhosh Kumar passed away on 13.12.2016, while in service. He has left behind these two petitioners and a daughter by name Miss. H.S.Archana. By issuing the impugned endorsement dated 06.12.2017, the 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, has made reference to the Government Order dated 01.03.2002 and holds that the dependants of an employee of a private aided institution are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners herein has been rejected by the 3rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners brings to the notice of this Court, a judgment in W.P.No.81882/2009, which was disposed of on 08.11.2012, at Kalaburagi Bench. In the said writ petition, similar endorsement was issued by the Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education while making reference to the Government Order dated 01.03.2002. In that matter, the petitioner who was the son of the deceased employee has sought for appointment to the post of Peon. The petitioner had passed IX standard and was eligible for appointment as Peon in the respondent-college. Upon consideration of all these aspects, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that as long as the relevant Rules i.e., Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, framed by the State Government are made applicable to aided institutions receiving grant-in-aid, it will not be open to the respondent-authorities to contend that for filling up such vacancy as per Rules, the Government is not responsible for meeting the salary and allowances. Such a contention cannot be based on Rules 8(2) as it would defeat the Government order dated 28.11.1998, which is issued with a laudable objective extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the family in distress and which is pushed into penury on account of the sudden crisis. Such a contention cannot be based on Rules 8(2) as it would defeat the Government order dated 28.11.1998, which is issued with a laudable objective extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the family in distress and which is pushed into penury on account of the sudden crisis. It is not the case of the State Government before this Court that the Rules pertaining to appointment on compassionate grounds has since been withdrawn from its application to the institutions receiving grant-in-aid. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent-Government was found to be unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed in part, while quashing the endorsement and respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in that order. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the said order has been questioned before the Division Bench and the same is pending consideration in W.A. No. 200235/2017 at Kalaburagi Bench. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusing the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the similar orders that were passed in W.P. No. 81882/2009 (supra), needs to be passed in the present writ petitions also. Therefore, Annexure-E is quashed and set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the observation made in W.P. No. 81882/2009, which was disposed of on 08.11.2012 in the case of Bheemashankar v. State of Karnataka and Others and keeping in mind the provision of the Rules, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs.