JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - The petitioner herein is aggrieved by rejection of her claim for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, which stands rejected by the respondents-State, vide communication dated 18th September, 2012, Annexure P4. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under; Father of the petitioner was working with the respondents-State as OT/Shastri teacher. He died in harness on 14.07.2003, leaving behind his widow, two daughters and a minor son. The petitioner applied for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, through proper channel, on 27.01.2004, as she was fully eligible for being considered for grant of appointment on compassionate basis. The case was forwarded, through proper channel, on 27.01.2004, vide Annexure P1. There are documents, Annexures P2 and P3 on record, which demonstrate that after case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Principal concerned before the competent authority, certain shortcomings were pointed out therein, which it appears were made good by the petitioner from time to time. However, vide Annexure P4, case of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority by passing the following order: - "It is informed that matters for appointment on compassionate ground in r/o following applicants as mentioned in Annexure-A were taken up with the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and the Secretary (Hr. Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh has informed that the case of the applicant does not meet the financial/income criteria so fixed by the Govt. in Finance Deptt./does not possess the minimum/requisite Educational Qualifications/not applied within prescribed time limit of three years as per policy. Thus, these cannot be considered. Hence, the same are hereby rejected. You are, therefore, requested to inform the applicant accordingly." 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that reasonings which stand assigned by the competent authority while rejecting the case of the petitioner, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, because it is incorrect on the part of the respondents-State to say that the petitioner did not approach the competent authority for grant of appointment on compassionate basis within the stipulated period of three years. He has further argued that contention of the State that petitioner does not meet the financial/ income criteria so fixed by the Government, is also erroneous, because the State cannot take into consideration the pensionary benefits etc., which the family received after the death of father of the petitioner as has been done in this case. Accordingly, he prays that Annexure P4 be quashed and set aside and direction be issued to the respondents-State to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 5. Opposing the petition, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though it is not in dispute that father of the petitioner died in harness and an application was filed by petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate basis, yet, the application initially submitted by the petitioner, was not complete in all respects and despite opportunities having been granted, as application complete in regard never stood filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period of three years, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner. He has further pointed out the averments as contained in the reply filed by the State and submits that as per the financial criteria, which has been fixed by the State Government, family of the petitioner was not falling in the definition of such like family which are liable to be given compassionate appointment, if their predecessor dies in harness. On these grounds, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the claim of the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well documents appended therewith. 7. As it is not in dispute that after the death of her father, the petitioner did apply for grant of appointment on compassionate basis immediately, i.e., within the stipulated period of three years, therefore, the ground which has been assigned by the competent authority in Annexure P4 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, i.e., that the petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period of three years as per policy of the State Government, is erroneous and liable to be rejected. This, I say so for the reason that there is a subtle difference between a person not applying for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time limit and a person though applying, submitting incomplete papers for consideration of his or her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. This at a most may be a case where the documents which were accompanying the application filed by the petitioner, were not complete, but then, in my considered view, in such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time limit. 8. As far as contention of the State that petitioner did not fall within the financial/income criteria so fixed by the Government in Finance Department as per policy in vogue all that this Court wants to observe is that while ascertaining the financial capacity of the petitioner as to whether State cannot take into consideration those emoluments, which the family received post death of an employee in issue. Such like emoluments have to be excluded while arriving at the conclusion as to whether the family is covered by the policy for grant of compassionate appointment or not. 9. Accordingly, in these circumstances, this petition is allowed to the extent that order dated 18th September, 2012, Annexure P4, is quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner only, with a direction to the respondents-State to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment afresh in terms of the policy in vogue at the time of submission of application by the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 10. It is clarified that in case any further information is required from the petitioner by the competent authority, then the same be sought in writing from the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment positively be passed within a period of three months from today and any order which may be passed by the competent authority, be passed, sympathetically, keeping in view the fact that petitioner happens to be Ward of an employee, who served the Department concerned and died in harness. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.