ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment within a period of two years from the date on which he attained majority. The application made by the appellant was not considered by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. There are four grounds recorded by the High Court in the paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment for rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The said four grounds are as follows: “(i) It is 15 years past the demise of the father. (ii) For 15 years, the family has survived. (iii) The sister of the petitioner has also got married. (iv) The petitioner has also got married and is working as a labourer.” 5. The fact that the appellant's sister has got married has obviously nothing to do with the grant of compassionate appointment to the appellant. Secondly, the appellant is not having regular employment and is working as a labourer. Thirdly, the appellant could apply only after he attained the age of majority. 6. It is very unfortunate that the concerned respondents raised a contention before the High Court that as the family of the appellant has survived for 15 years after the death of the appellant's father, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment. In our view, considering the concept of welfare State, the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 ought not to have raised such a contention, especially when the appellant is making both ends meet by working as a labourer. Thus, none of the four grounds mentioned above are available to the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 5 submitted that initially the appellant's mother applied for compassionate appointment and thereafter, the appellant applied for substitution. On this point, in the paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has decided against the State Government. 8. It is not pointed out that the appellant was required to apply within a specified time from the date on which he attained majority. In the facts of the case, the appellant applied within a reasonable time from the date of attaining majority. 9. 8. It is not pointed out that the appellant was required to apply within a specified time from the date on which he attained majority. In the facts of the case, the appellant applied within a reasonable time from the date of attaining majority. 9. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to consider the case of the appellant for grant of compassionate appointment in the light of what we have held in this judgment. 10. Necessary action shall be taken by the respondent-State within a period of three months from today. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed.