JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P12 and for a declaration that the petitioner is eligible to get employment under the 1 st respondent in compassionate appointment scheme. 2. The brief facts in the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is an unfortunate newborn abandoned by her biological parents, who has been adopted later by one Achuthan Nair and his wife Soudamini. Later Achuthan Nair died in harness on 15.11.2000 while in service with the 1 st respondent. 3. On 06.06.2001, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment, which was initially kept pending and ultimately it was returned on 23.12.2004 for resubmitting the same along with documentary evidence to prove the legality of adoption. The petitioner would submit that as evident from Ext.R1(a) produced by the 1 st respondent, she has produced the School Leaving Certificate to prove that the petitioner is the daughter of late Achuthan Nair and Soudamini. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.12132 of 2004, which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment directing reconsideration of the claim made by the petitioner making it clear that in the event of the petitioner establishing before the respondent on the basis of the documentary evidence that she is the adopted daughter of late Achuthan Nair and that there is no claim by Soudamini, who is his wife, the issue will be reconsidered by the respondent. As directed by this Court, on 06.10.2004, the petitioner produced the certificate issued by the Village Officer in this regard. The said document was not accepted by the 1 st respondent and Ext.P2 communication was issued stating that the petitioner has not produced any document to prove her legal adoption and in the said circumstance, she was again reminded to produce the legal adoption certified by the Court of Law for enabling the 1 st respondent to consider the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner would submit that the 1 st respondent decided to introduce a scheme for monetary compensation (lump-sum amount) to the legal heirs of the deceased employee instead of compassionate ground appointment for deaths which might have taken place on or after 01.06.2002, making it clear that there shall be no compassionate appointment for death occurring on or after the said date. However, the respondents, as per the Circular dated 05.12.2014, decided to review the compassionate appointment with effect from 01.11.2014 based on Ext.P3 communication dated 16.01.2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions. The petitioner would submit that as per Ext.P3, especially paragraph 6, relaxation could be brought in relating the age limit and in Clause B(a) upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be necessary. But the lower age limit should, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years of age. It is further stated in Note I therein that age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment. Note II further clarified that the authority competent to take a final decision for making compassionate appointment shall be competent to grant relaxation of upper age limit also for making such appointment. In view of issuance of Ext.P3, the petitioner filed a suit as O.S.No.172 of 2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Perambra seeking a decree declaring that the petitioner is a legally adopted daughter of the deceased Achuthan Nair and Soudamini. The said suit was decreed as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 19.10.2016. Thereupon, another representation was submitted by the petitioner on 15.05.2017 and the claim was considered and rejected as per Ext.P5 order dated 21.02.2018 relying on the old scheme for compassionate appointment which mandates that the applicants who have completed 30 years of age are not eligible for compassionate appointment and that there was considerable delay in submitting the documents by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal, which was directed to be disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P7 judgment dated 30.01.2020. Pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, the matter was considered and Ext.P8 communication was issued directing the petitioner to produce Succession Certificate. Thereupon, petitioner has filed Succession O.P.No.8 of 2020, but the same was rejected stating that the succession certificate envisaged under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act is only in respect of Debt or Security to which a deceased father was entitled. Along with Ext.P10, Ext.P9 was produced before the 1 st respondent. Thereupon, petitioner has filed Succession O.P.No.8 of 2020, but the same was rejected stating that the succession certificate envisaged under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act is only in respect of Debt or Security to which a deceased father was entitled. Along with Ext.P10, Ext.P9 was produced before the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent, by Ext.P11, sought further time from this Court to consider and pass orders on the appeal, which was granted by this Court and later, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P12 holding that as per the old scheme during which the petitioner submitted the application the upper age limit fixed was 30 years and the petitioner has crossed 36 years and is not eligible for a compassionate appointment. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner, relying on Ext.P13, submits that the upper age limit shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment. Relying on Ext.P14 it is submitted that the request for compassionate appointment consequent to the death/retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile sub-staff shall be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In Ext.P5 order it is mentioned that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No.24506 of 2016 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn and a contention has been taken in the counter affidavit that the same was without reserving any liberty and, therefore, the petitioner cannot reagitate her claim. The petitioner, relying on Ext.P15 petition to withdraw the writ petition, would contend that such request for withdrawal of the case was with liberty to move a fresh writ petition as and when occasion arise. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 mainly contending that once the petitioner has crossed the age of 36, she cannot be considered under compassionate appointment. The wife of deceased Achuthan Nair has made a request as per Exts.R1(a) and R1(b), requesting for her appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. Though the petitioner was directed to produce the legal adoption deed issued by this Court, petitioner has not thereafter turned up. The wife of deceased Achuthan Nair has made a request as per Exts.R1(a) and R1(b), requesting for her appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. Though the petitioner was directed to produce the legal adoption deed issued by this Court, petitioner has not thereafter turned up. It is submitted that in 2002 the provision of compassionate appointment was done away with and later on 2014, another compassionate appointment scheme was brought in, deciding to reopen the compassionate ground appointment with effect from 01.11.2014 to the legal heirs of the deceased in respect of death occurring on or after 01.11.2014. It is contended that the petitioner has not made any claim after 2004 and further that she has crossed age of 30 in 2014 and, therefore, she cannot be appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme. It is further contended that the present compassionate appointment scheme is applicable to the legal heirs of the deceased in respect of the death of employees on or after 01.11.2014 and, therefore, the provisions of the scheme cannot be extended to the petitioner and hence Ext.P12 is not liable to be interfered with. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that deceased Achuthan Nair, the father of the petitioner, died on 15.11.2000 and on 06.06.2001 an application for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme was submitted by the petitioner. It is also a fact that till 2004, for three years, there was no decision taken on the said application and on 23.12.2004 the same was returned for resubmission along with documentary evidence to prove the legality of adoption. It is seen that the petitioner, along with the original application, has submitted the School Leaving Certificate, which shows that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Achuthan Nair and Soudamini, but the same was not accepted as evident from Ext.R1(a) and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.12132 of 2004 and this Court disposed of the same as per Ext.P1 judgment direction reconsideration of the case of the petitioner in the event of producing documentary evidence to prove that she is the adopted daughter of the deceased Achuthan Nair. Later, on 06.06.2001, the certificate issued by the Village Officer was produced to prove that she is the daughter of the deceased Achuthan Nair, but as per Ext.P2 she was informed that the application cannot be considered on the basis of the documentary evidence now produced, but petitioner has to produce legal adoption deed issued by a Court to enable the 1 st respondent to consider her appointment on compassionate grounds. The important aspect to be noted is that by Ext.P2 the application submitted by the petitioner has not been rejected at all, but the same was kept pending so as to enable the petitioner to produce the legal adoption deed issued by a Court. It is an admitted fact that after 2002 the scheme for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme was done away with by the respondent-Company and the same was reintroduced with effect from 01.11.2014 and as stated above, with provision for granting relaxation of upper age limit to an eligible applicant. It is seen that since the scheme was not in force from 2002-2014 and by Ext.P2 the application of the petitioner was not dismissed, but only kept without considering the same for production of the evidence to prove adoption, the petitioner, in 2016, after the reintroduction of the Scheme in 2014, filed O.S.No.172 of 2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Perambra, for a decree declaring that the petitioner is the legally adopted daughter and the said suit was decreed as per Ext.P4 judgment declaring that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased Achuthan Nair. After Ext.P4, another representation was filed on 15.05.2017, producing Ext.P4 judgment and the same was considered and rejected as per Ext.P5, stating that there is delay in production of the document and going by the scheme existing on the date of application, the upper age limit was fixed as 30 years. Though Ext.P6 appeal was filed, by Ext.P8 he petitioner was directed to forward the succession certificate to examine the matter further. Though petitioner filed succession O.P.8 of 2020, the same was objected as per Ext.P9 holding that the succession certificate can be issued only in relation to a debt or security as envisaged under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 . Thereafter, without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner, by Ext.P12, the request made by the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner, by Ext.P12, the request made by the petitioner was rejected. Admittedly, at the time of filing of the application on 06.06.2001, the petitioner was entitled for an appointment as she was less than 30 years. But appointment was not granted only for want of production of documents to prove that she is the adopted daughter of late Achuthan Nair. To prove the same, the petitioner has produced the School Leaving Certificate as well as the certificate issued by the Village Officer, but the authorities insisted on production of a legal adoption deed issued by a Court, as evident from Ext.P2. A perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that the application has not been rejected and that it has been kept pending for production of the certificate. It is a fact that from 2002-2014, there was no scheme for compassionate appointment in the respondent-company and it was reintroduced only in 2014. The petitioner cannot be found fault with for not producing any document in between 2002 and 2014 inasmuch there was no compassionate scheme in the 1 st respondent-company during the said period. Immediately on reintroduction of the compassionate appointment scheme in 2014 the petitioner approached the competent civil Court and by Ext.P4, the civil Court has declared that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of late Achuthan Nair. When Ext.P4, which is requested to be produced as per Ext.P2, was produced before the authorities concerned, they have rejected the same as per Ext.P5 stating that the petitioner has already completed 30 years of age. 8. In such circumstances, I am of the view that since as per Ext.P2, the application has not been rejected, but only directed the petitioner to produce the legal adoption deed issued by a Court and after production of the same as per Ext.P4, the rejection of the application as per Ext.P5 stating that the petitioner has completed 30 years of age cannot be accepted. 9. Another aspect to be considered is Ext.P13 , which is an amendment to the scheme, which mandates that age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not with the date of appointment. 9. Another aspect to be considered is Ext.P13 , which is an amendment to the scheme, which mandates that age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not with the date of appointment. Further Ext.P14 specifically provides that the request for compassionate appointment consequent to the death/retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile sub-staff may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, as on the date of application, the petitioner was well within the age limit eligible for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme, but only when the same was considered and rejected as per Ext.P5 that the petitioner has crossed the age of 30 years. Therefore, the reasons stated in Ext.P5, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, that the petitioner is over aged, cannot be accepted at all. 10. Further aspect to be noted is that the petitioner has submitted the application well within the time, ie. within a period of one year of the date of the death of the petitioner’s father, but the same was rejected only as per Ext.P5 on 21.02.2018, stating that the petitioner has crossed the age of 30. 11. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, especially the fact that the petitioner has filed the application well within time and legal document regarding adoption issued by the Court has been produced as Ext.P4, I am of the view that the petitioner’s case ought not have been rejected for the sole reason that the petitioner has crossed the age of 30 at the time of consideration of the application, inasmuch the age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not on the date of appointment. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P12 order dated 06.08.2020 is accordingly set aside declaring that the petitioner is eligible to get appointment in the 1 st respondent under the compassionate appointment scheme. A consequential direction is passed to respondents 1 to 3 to grant appointment to the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above