Order : KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Samson, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents are not considering the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. It is stated that the petitioner's father died on 31.07.1998 while working as an Assistant Beat Officer. At the time of his father's death, the petitioner was 7 years old. The deceased employee left behind the petitioner and two elder sisters - one of them was married, and the other, aged 9 years, was physically disabled at the time of their father's death. The petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment after attaining majority and after completing his Intermediate education on 30.04.2012. 4. The 1 st respondent rejected the petitioner's application by an order dated 03.09.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4236 of 2014 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for relaxation of age in light of similar cases, taking into account the physical disability of the petitioner's sister. In pursuance thereof, the 1 st respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's case. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the said rejection order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rejection order issued by the 1 st respondent is not reasoned. The Tribunal had earlier directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case by relaxing the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, in the same manner as was done in the cases of similarly situated persons. However, the 1 st respondent, in the impugned order, does not point out how the petitioner's case is distinguishable or ineligible for similar relaxation under the said G.O. 6. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in the case of K.Udaykiran vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2021 SCC OnLine AP 209] , wherein it is observed as follows: “The father of the petitioner died on 20.02.1999 while in service, leaving behind his wife and son. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother are not having any livelihood since they are purely depended on the income of his father. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother are not having any livelihood since they are purely depended on the income of his father. By the date of death of his father, he was aged about 9 years and his mother being an illiterate could not make any application for appointment on compassionate grounds at that time.” 7. The learned counsel further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited , [ 2000 (6) SCC 493 ] and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of The Superintending Engineer vs. V.Jaya , [2007 (6) Mad LJ 1011] , wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relying on the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of S.Murugeshwari vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , [W.P.(MD)No.4517 of 2025 dated 19.02.2025] and S.Sevugamoorthi vs. The Director, Municipal Administration , W.P.(MD)No.5677 of 2025 and W.P.(MD)No.4136 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025 argues that the respondents have not provided any reasons for denying petitioner appointment on compassionate basis. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents submit that the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment. In support of his contentions he relies on the following decisions: (a) Decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana , [ 1994 (4) SCC 138 ] , wherein it was observed as follows: “The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.” (b) Decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, 1996 (8) SCC 23 held as follows: “ 6. The learned counsel has also placed before us an unreported decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar [ (1996) 1 SCC 301 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1996) 32 ATC 238]. In the said case, the question of appointment on compassionate ground to an applicant who was four years' old at the time when his father an ex-employee died in harness, came up for consideration. In the said case, the question of appointment on compassionate ground to an applicant who was four years' old at the time when his father an ex-employee died in harness, came up for consideration. It was contended before this Court that since the appellant was minor when the father died in harness, the compassionate circumstances having continued till the date he made an application for appointment, he was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Such contention was not accepted by the court below and upholding the rejection of such claim for appointment, this Court has indicated to the following effect: “The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years' old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased government servant which cannot be encouraged, dehors the recruitment rules.” ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………. 9. It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad case [ (1996) 1 SCC 301 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1996) 32 ATC 238], it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years.” (C) Decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh , [ (1995) 6 SCC 476 ] , wherein it was held as follows: “ 5. It is common ground, that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed. In this case Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972. He left behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent, a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent attained majority in 1980/1981. There is no material on record to show that the respondent applied within 5 years of “the event” or within one year from the date of his attaining majority. As early as 21-9-1987 an application filed by the respondent was dismissed. The subsequent applications filed in that behalf were dismissed on 19-6-1990 and 11-6-1991. There is material on record to show that the respondent was aged 33 years at the time of making the application and the last application which was allowed by the Tribunal was one filed nearly 20 years after the death of Ram Singh. Patently the application is barred. 6. The facts of this case disclose that on the date when Ram Singh died (12-9-1972) he had, besides the respondent, who was a minor then, two major sons and a wife. The two major sons and the wife did not seek any appointment on compassionate grounds. As stated by this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India [ (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC 878 : (1989) 2 Scale 473 : AIR 1989 SC 1976 ] : (SCC p. 470, para 9)] “… in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.” 10. Placing reliance on the judgments referred, the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I argues that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis. 11. Considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reflects that relaxation has been granted in the case of similarly situated persons. It is not clear from the record as to why the petitioner has been discriminated against, except to state the delay in submission of the application. 11. Considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reflects that relaxation has been granted in the case of similarly situated persons. It is not clear from the record as to why the petitioner has been discriminated against, except to state the delay in submission of the application. The respondents have cited a delay of 24 years from the date of the petitioner's father's death. However, the petitioner made the application immediately upon attaining the age of majority and completing his intermediate course. Hence, the petitioner's case deserves consideration on compassionate grounds, on par with similarly situated persons and further having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s father had left behind him a physically disabled child, whom the petitioner has to look after. 12. Further, the impugned order is not a reasoned one, despite the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) requiring the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for relaxation of age as was considered to the candidates referred to in G.O.Ms.No.1395 dated 26.08.2011, G.O.Rt.No.427 dated 21.02.2009 and other GOs that the Tribunal referred to in its order. The impugned order fails to assign any reasons as to why relaxation of the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, cannot be granted to the petitioner. In the absence of any such reasoning, the issuance of the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1 st respondent for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders in light of the directions issued by the Tribunal. Needless to observe, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.