ORDER : The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No.4 rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as being time barred. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner’s father Shri Mangal Das Banjare who was working as Sahayak Antrik Lekha Parikshan and Kararopan Adhikari in Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur, died in harness on 15.11.2013. Thereafter, on 22.6.2015 the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the Director, Directorate of Panchayat and Social Services, Raipur vide Annexure P/2 which was forwarded to the Collector, Kanker through letter dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P/3). However, as per the certificate issued by respondent No.3/CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P/4), though the petitioner was held to be entitled for compassionate appointment but it was mentioned therein that at present there is no vacant post in Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur. Thereafter, the Additional Collector, North Bastar, Kanker issued a Memo dated 23.1.2016 (Annexure P/5) to respondent No.4/District Education Officer, South Bastar mentioning therein that as per clause 8(4) of the circular dated 14.6.2013 of General Administration Department of the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post and hence, necessary action be taken in the matter. The Dy. Director, Panchayat, North Bastar through letter dated 21.1.2016 (Annexure P/7) directed the petitioner to submit consent of his family, affidavit and other necessary documents within a week so that further proceedings for his compassionate appointment on the post of peon could be done. However, on 18.2.2016 the impugned order was passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the application of the petitioner as being time barred. Hence this petition for the following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it’s kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction commanding the respondents about the appointment of the petitioner on Compassionate basis in their office as the post of class 3 or class 4. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case.” 3. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and arbitrary, as such liable to be set aside. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 15.11.2013, he was the only earning member of the family; the petitioner was wholly dependent upon him and therefore, he submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was duly processed by the respondent authorities and he was held entitled for compassionate appointment, however, by the impugned order dated 18.2.2016 (Annexure P/1), his application was rejected on the ground of it being time barred whereas Clause 16 of the Circular dated 14.6.2013 provided limitation of three years in normal circumstances and five years under special circumstances for filing such application. As the petitioner filed application within three years from the date of death of his father, the same cannot be termed as time barred. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a stipulated time period. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 15.11.2013 whereas the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 22.6.2015 i.e. after a long delay as according to Clause 15(2) of the Circular dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P/8), the limitation prescribed for filing such application is three months after death of the government employee. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is just, proper and legal, warranting no interference by this Court. The petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supporting the stand of respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected as being time barred since it was filed after a long delay on 22.6.2013 whereas the death of his father took place on 15.11.2013. As such, by virtue of condition prescribed in Clause 15(2) of the Circular dated 14.6.2013, the said application was not maintainable at all. Therefore, the present petition lacks any merit and deserves dismissal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As such, by virtue of condition prescribed in Clause 15(2) of the Circular dated 14.6.2013, the said application was not maintainable at all. Therefore, the present petition lacks any merit and deserves dismissal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s father was working the respondents department and died in harness on 15.11.2013 and the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment filed on 22.6.2015 was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) on the ground of limitation. 8. True it is that as per Clause 15(2), the limitation prescribed for filing application for compassionate appointment is three months. However, there is Clause 15(1) which mandates that head of the department or the appointing authority of the deceased employee shall provide information and prescribed format to the dependent family of the deceased employee regarding compassionate appointment, within a period of one month and such information shall be kept safe in the office. Clause 15(1) of the Circular dated 14.6.2013 reads as under : ^^15- vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k%& ¼1½ fnoxar 'kkldh; lsod ds dk;kZy; izeq[k ;k fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr laca/kh tkudkjh ,oa fu/kkZfjr vkosnu&i= dk Ák:i ¼ifjf'k"V&,d½ ,d ekg dh vof/k esa miyC/k djk;k tk,xk rFkk ,slh tkudkjh dk;kZy; ds vfHkys[k esa lqjf{kr j[kh tk;sxhA** The respondents have not filed any document which could show that any such information as contemplated under Clause 15(1) was ever provided to the dependent family of the deceased employee by the head of the department or the appointing authority of the deceased employee. Furthermore, Clause 16 provides for limitation for compassionate appointment which being relevant is reproduced hereunder : ^^16- vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy, le;&lhek %& lkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy, vf/kdre vof/k 03 o"kZ gksxh rFkk fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g vof/k 05 o"kZ gksxh ysfdu blds fy, vkSfpR; ,oa dkj.k n'kkZrs gq, iz'kkldh; foHkkx ds ek/;e ls lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dh vuqefr izkIr djuk vko';d gksxhA** 9. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner filed application (Annexure P/2) within three years from the date of death of his father but the respondent authorities overlooking the conditions prescribed in Clauses 15(1) and 16 of the Circular dated 14.6.2013, rejected his application in a mechanical manner, which cannot be allowed to be sustained. 10. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner filed application (Annexure P/2) within three years from the date of death of his father but the respondent authorities overlooking the conditions prescribed in Clauses 15(1) and 16 of the Circular dated 14.6.2013, rejected his application in a mechanical manner, which cannot be allowed to be sustained. 10. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the impugned order dated 18.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) is passed, the provisions of Clause 15(1) and 16 of the Circular dated 14.6.2013, the impugned order dated 18.2.2016 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh and if he is found fit, grant him compassionate appointment as per rules within a period four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.